THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


THIRTY-FIFTH MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


VOLS. II, III 


DAY TWO 


ABRWH BOARD MEETING
 

The verbatim transcript of the 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Doubletree Oak Ridge, 


Oak Ridge, Tennessee, on January 25, 2006. 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

January 25, 2006 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

8 

PACIFIC PROVING GROUNDS SEC DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

PRESENTATION BY NIOSH, DR. JIM NETON, NIOSH 

PRESENTATION BY PETITIONERS, DANIELLA KARO 

BOARD DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION DR. PAUL ZIEMER 

PRESENTATION BY DTRA, DR. PAUL BLAKE 

BOARD DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION DR. PAUL ZIEMER 

9 

11 

35 

45 

47 

52 

CLASSIFIED DATA: IMPACT ON BOARD SEC 105 


PETITION RECOMMENDATION 


DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 


BOARD CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSE TO LETTERS FROM 120 


SEN. CLINTON, SEN. SCHUMER, REP. HIGGINS, REP. 


SLAUGHTER, AND MIKE WRIGHT, STEEL WORKERS 


(PRESENTATION BY NIOSH/ORAU ON WORKER INTERACTIONS) 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


ROCKY FLATS SITE PROFILE – DISCUSSION/ 163 


PLAN OF ACTION 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


HANFORD SITE PROFILE – PRESENTATION 210 


COMMENTS, DISCUSSION, PLAN OF ACTION 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


NIOSH 


REPORT FROM SC&A ON SEC TASK 250 


DR. ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 


PROCEDURES FOR BOARD EVALUATION OF SEC PETITIONS - 304 


DISCUSSON PART II (INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF THE PENDING 


Y-12 PETITION AND A DISCUSSION OF THE SC&A SEC TASK) 


DR. JAMES MELIUS, ABRWH 


PUBLIC COMMENT 319 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 417 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 


or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


-- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D. 


Chief Medical Officer 


Occupational and Environmental Health 


Wisconsin Division of Public Health 


Madison, Wisconsin 


DeHART, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H. 


Director 


The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 


Medicine 


Professor of Medicine 


Nashville, Tennessee 


ESPINOSA, Richard Lee 


Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 


Johnson Controls 


Los Alamos National Laboratory 


Espanola, New Mexico 

 

5 

GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 


GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


MELIUS, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


STAFF/VENDORS
 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

6 

OTHER PARTICIPANTS
 

(in order of appearance) 


DR. JIM NETON, NIOSH 


MR. PETE TURCIC, DOL 


MS. DANIELLA KARO, PETITIONER 


DR. PAUL BLAKE, DTRA 


MR. LARRY, ELLIOTT, NIOSH 


MS. LIZ HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS 


MS. KATE KIMPAN, ORAU 


MR. TONY DEMAIORI, UNITED STEELWORKERS 


MR. DAVID HILLER, SENATOR SALAZAR’S OFFICE 


MS. JEANETTE ALBERG, SENATOR ALLARD’S OFFICE 


MS. CAROLYN BOLLER, CONGRESSMAN UDALL’S OFFICE 


MS. AMY WARDEN, CONGRESSMAN BEAUPREZ’S OFFICE 


MR. JOE FITZGERALD, SC&A 


MS. LIVIA LAM, SENATOR CANTWELL’S OFFICE 


DR. JOHN MAURO, SC&A 


DR. HANS BEHLING, SC&A 


DR. ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A 


MR. STUART HINNEFELD, NIOSH 

7 

PUBLIC COMMENT
 

(in order of appearance) 


MR. JACK WOOLUM 


MR. JIM PHELPS 


MR. OTIS LEE 


MR. T.L. DISHMAN 


MR. RAY BEATTY 


MS. JOHNNIE SUE GOODMAN 


MR. FRANKLIN TUCKER 


MS. DOROTHY THOMPSON 


MR. THOMAS DUNCAN 


MR. PAUL ROYSTER 


MS. FLORENCE ROBERTSON 


MS. GAIL BURGESS 


MS. SHARON SLACKEY 


MS. KATHY MILLER 


MS. FAYE HOLT 


MS. LINDSAY LONG 


MR. EARL O’NEAL 


MS. DIANE BOINET 


MS. SHIRLEY MOODY 


MR. DENNIS BROWN 


MS. DIANE MCKEETHAN 


MR. FRANK SCOTT 


MS. VALERIE MANER 


MS. ELLEN FOSTER 


MS. JANICE ALLEN 


MR. M.L. RUSSELL 


MS. DEBRA KILEY 


MR. MARTIN DELOZIER 


MR. JAMES HACKWORTH 


MR. LEONARD BOWERS 

8 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(8:45 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. This begins day 


two of our meeting of the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health here in Oak Ridge. 


I want to give you the usual reminders, and 


that is to register your attendance with us 


today at the registration books out in the 


corridor. Also, members of the public who wish 


to address the assembly later today at the 


public comment period, which is at 7:30 this 


evening, please register on the book that is 


also in the -- in the corridor. 


 Again I'll remind you that there are copies of 


the various documents that are being used today 


on the table over on my far right. 


Board members, you should have received this 


morning copies of the minutes of the August and 


October meetings, and we will review those 


minutes tomorrow, but I want to make sure all 


of you have those. 


The first main item on our agenda this -- well, 


let me pause here and ask Dr. Wade, our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

Designated Federal Official, if he has any 


additional general remarks this morning. 


 DR. WADE: Well, only to -- I mean I -- for 


some reason I feel compelled to thank the Board 


for its hard work. There is a tremendous 


amount of material on your plate, and I know 


that it's difficult and I applaud your efforts. 


I also applaud your efforts at a level of 


transparency in work that I've not seen in my 


time associated with such boards. I think it 


reflects well on not only the hard work you do, 


but the way you do that work, and I think a 


note of thanks is appropriate, so thank you for 


that. 


Just to usurp Paul for one minute, on the 


Pacific Proving Grounds we have no conflicts of 


interest on the Board, so we are free to do 


anything we want to do in any way we want to do 


it. 


PACIFIC PROVING GROUNDS SEC DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. That opens the door pretty 


wide. Well, I -- that --


 DR. DEHART: Could we visit? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that does bring us to the first 


main item on our agenda, which is the SEC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

10 

petition on the Pacific Proving Grounds. We 


will have a presentation from NIOSH by Dr. 


Neton. That will be followed by a presentation 


from the petitioners, and hopefully we'll have 


on the line Danella Karo. I don't know if 


Danella's on the phone yet -- 


 MS. KARO: Yes, I have just (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Danella, welcome. 


 MS. KARO: -- thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Please let us know if you have 


difficulty hearing. So we'll hear then from 


Danella, and then -- or is -- it's Daniella, I 


guess, is it Daniella? 


 MS. KARO: It's Daniella, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I want to pronounce it correctly. 


 MS. KARO: That's okay. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And then also present 


with us this morning is Paul Blake. Paul is 


here on behalf of the Defense Threat Reduction 


Agency, and as many of you know, DTRA is 


involved in a counterpart program involving 


compensation for atomic veterans. And Board 


members, I hope you received the recent -- 


 DR. WADE: It's in the book. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- document -- is it in the book? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

11

 DR. WADE: Yeah, it should be everything. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the tab, as well, with a 


number of comments and concerns that were 


raised by DTRA, and we'll have an opportunity 


to discuss those, as well, in connection with 


this petition. 


So let us begin with the presentation by NIOSH. 


 DR. WADE: And Ms. Karo, please let us know if 


you have any trouble hearing at all. 


 MS. KARO: Thank you, I can hear you quite 


well. Thank you. 


PRESENTATION BY NIOSH, DR. JIM NETON, NIOSH


 DR. WADE: Okay. And now Dr. Neton will start 


to talk. This is -- this one is proof of the 


fact that there are no simple SECs. 


DR. NETON: Thank you. Good morning, 


everybody. I'm going to discuss the SE-- 


evaluate-- NIOSH's evaluation of SEC Petition 


No. 20, which was -- was received by NIOSH 


under a different -- a different criteria or 


different definition. We now are evaluating 


the Pacific Proving Grounds in total and not 


just Operation HARDTACK 1, which was the basis 


for the petition. We'll get into that a little 


bit later. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

I just want to start -- that's interesting. 


The font changed on my slides overnight. It's 


still readable, fortunately, but that's really 


odd. 


 The first slide I just want to show you is a 


little background information on what we mean 


when we talk about Pacific Proving Grounds, and 


the Pacific Proving Grounds is a series of 


atolls and islands in the Marshall Islands -- 


including Enewetak, Bikini, Johnson Island and 


Christmas Island -- where a series of nuclear 


tests were conducted by the military -- U.S. 


military, starting in 1946 and finishing in 


1962. As the slide indicates, it started with 


Operation CROSSROADS and, through various 


series, completed with DOMINIC in '62. There 


were a number of detonations at each of these 


tests. Each of those detonations had specific 


names. But suffice it to say that in total 


there were a little over 100 detonations in the 


Pacific Proving Grounds during this time period 


-- of various natures, whether they were 


underwater, air bursts, surface bursts, that 


sort of thing. It was a pretty rigorous 


testing program for nuclear weapons. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

13 

As I indicated, the petition as received by 


NIOSH, initial class, was for all scientists 


and couriers who were employed at Enewetak 


Atoll during Operation HARDTACK 1 from July 


1st, 1958 through August 31st, 1958 -- a very 


narrow period of time, a very narrow window. 


As usual with these petitions, NIOSH takes the 


opportunity to evaluate beyond the established 


class to see if there were -- there's any 


additional exposure scenarios and time periods 


that should be evaluated and could be possibly 


covered under this petition. 


I'm going to take a similar tack that I have -- 


NIOSH has with past SEC petition evaluations 


and sort of go through the process and show you 


and highlight the various things that we've 


looked at as far as this petition -- and all of 


these have been summarized in the evaluation 


report that you've received. 


So as usual, once a petition meets the criteria 


it become qualified. This petition was 


qualified April 11, 2005, and the regulations 


require that we notify the petitioner and 


publish a notice in the Federal Register. The 


petitioner was notified and a notice was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

14 

published in the Federal Register on May 5th, 


2005. 


In keeping with our process we evaluate the 


petition using the guidelines in 83.13, and we 


submit a summary of the findings of the 


evaluation report to the Board. That report 


was sent to the Board on October 20th. It was 


also sent to the petitioners on October 20th, 


2005. A notice that the petition report would 


be discussed at the Advisory Board, this 


meeting here, was published in the Federal 


Register on January 18th, 2006. 


There was a supplement submitted to the Board 


and the petitioners fairly recently, on January 


20th, 2006, and that was a result of a couple 


of things. It was primarily motivated based on 


a letter that we -- that NIOSH had received 


from Dr. Paul Blake of the Defense Threat 


Reduction Agency on December -- it was dated 


December 22nd, 2005. That letter expressed 


concern that the petition report contained 


several misrepresentations of how the -- of a 


National Research Council report that was 


published on the DTRA program, the Defense 


Threat Reduction Agency's programs. And it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

15 

also had a discussion of misconceptions that 


NIOSH may have had about the operating status 


of the DTRA program. So in this supplement we 


attempted to address the issues raised in the 


report, and I'll discuss that in detail a 


little bit further. 


In addition in the supplement we took the 


opportunity to slightly modify the class 


definition that we were proposing, and somewhat 


narrowed the focus of the petition -- of the 


proposed class, and we'll talk about that 


later, as well. 


Moving on with the evaluation process, as in 


past petitions there's a two-pronged test 


established by EEOICPA to determine two things; 


one, is it feasible to estimate the levels of 


radiation dose with sufficient accuracy; and 


secondly, is there a reasonable likelihood that 


the dose may have endangered the health of the 


workers. In reference to sufficient accuracy, 


the regulation states that we need to have 


access to data that can estimate the maximum 


radiation dose for every type of cancer that 


NIOSH would need to reconstruct at this site. 


And in fact we would need to do this under 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

plausible exposure circumstances. So in that 


respect it would not be sufficient -- and in 


practice we've seen in other SEC petition 


evaluations -- to, for instance, multiply some 


doses by a very high multiplier to assure that 


we bounded the doses. That would not meet our 


criteria of sufficient accuracy under the 


regulation. 


To determine if we can do these doses with 


sufficient accuracy, we went about identifying 


and reviewing a number of data sources of 


available information to see if we could 


feasibly do these dose reconstructions. And so 


in keeping with the hierarchical approach in 


the dose reconstruction regulation, we went 


about looking for sources of personal 


monitoring data, area monitoring data and 


testing processes and radiation source 


materials. That is, do we have any bioassay 


data out there, which would be our choice of 


preference for doing dose reconstructions. 


Barring that, do we have any area monitoring 


samples, air samples, that sort of thing. And 


lacking that, could we possibly reconstruct 


these doses using a source term analysis. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

The resources available were from the usual 


cast of characters. We have a dose 


reconstruction database where in fact we have 


information from claimants. We looked at the 


claims that we have in our database for 


claimants from the Pacific Proving Grounds, 


looked -- and searched those for any evidence 


of internal/external monitoring data, air 


monitoring data of that sort. We've been 


successful in the past at finding this type of 


information on claim files. We've also looked 


at our research database where NIOSH, with 


ORAU's assistance, has gone out and conducted 


extensive data capture efforts to retrieve 


archived records, looking for information 


related to these source terms -- bioassay, area 


monitoring, that sort of thing. 


We also searched publicly available records 


that are out there. The Defense Threat 


Reduction Agency has a very rich web site that 


contains a number of reports detailing the 


specifics of many of these tests, as well as 


some Department of Energy web sites and 


Lawrence Livermore documents. 


 And lastly, we looked through the documentation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

and evaluated the documentation or the 


affidavits that were provided by the 


petitioner. 


 We're looking through all these documents and 


looking at them from the perspective can we do 


a dose reconstruction and also evaluate these 


for the -- to determine the basis for health 


endangerment. That is, were these -- were 


there sufficient sources of ionizing radiation 


out there in the environment, and how were 


these sources of exposure delivered; were they 


episodic over a period of time, or were they 


some discrete event where a mere presence would 


have endangered their health. 


As I mentioned, we did review a lot of 


additional documents that were available on 


public-accessible web sites, including 


Livermore's, DTRA's and DOE's. And in fact we 


knew that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency 


was engaged in a similar program to do dose 


reconstructions for military personnel who were 


at these test sites. And so we engaged in 


several conversations with them via telephone 


and ultimately ended up having a site visit 


with DTRA contractor personnel who were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

actually doing these dose reconstructions to 


evaluate their process to see if it may be of 


use in reconstructing doses for purposes of 


EEOICPA. 


In fact, at the end of our visit we received 


some -- an example dose reconstruction provided 


by them for a test case. The dose 


reconstructions under the Defense Threat 


Reduction Agency's programs are -- at least the 


ones that we received -- were -- used the ICRP30 models for internal dose and estimated a 50­

year committed dose rather than the annual 


doses that we are -- we use under this program 


for our IREP calculations. 


I might add that the dose reconstructions for 


DTRA -- that the DTRA program itself, the 


Nuclear Test Personnel Review program, are 


conducted for non-presumptive cancers. Under 


the military program, all cancers are -- 


there's a list of presumptive cancers, much 


like in our program, and they are actually 


doing dose reconstructions for the non-


presumptive cancers. 


Okay, I'm going to skip this -- that really 


weird how that changed the font. I'm going to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

skip this slide and go back to it because I 


think the process will be a little better if I 


first discuss -- continue on with the 


evaluation process. 


We did look at affidavits and some 


documentation provided by the petitioners. 


This consisted of a signed affidavit from the 


petitioner which discussed that there were a 


number of scientists gathered in areas where 


boxes had leaked radiation. There was an 


indication of civilian personnel who may have 


been swimming in contaminated waters. And 


there was a contention that there was no 


monitoring for internal exposure from ingestion 


or inhalation during these time periods. 


 Supporting that affidavit was a -- some 


excerpts from a textbook on leukemia that 


discussed an epidemiologic report done by 


Caldwell, which showed a statistically 


significant -- significantly elevated incidence 


of leukemia at one test shot, I think it was 


Operation SMOKY. And also it discussed the 


fact that even -- there were low doses of 


external exposure, but the epi study was 


confounded by the fact that there was no 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

21 

evidence of any internal monitoring to 


supplement that dose to do the analysis. 


The summary of the available monitoring data 


that we were able to come up with from the 


sources that we evaluated was that we found 


that there was considerable external monitoring 


data. We had evaluated a NIOSH database and we 


found most people that had filed petitions from 


the Pacific Proving Grounds -- almost all 


people -- had external badge results, so there 


apparently had been a large percentage of 


workers had been badged. But we found no 


evidence in our files of any internal 


monitoring data. And in fact we ran acro-- we 


encountered almost no internal exposure data 


for any of the test shots. 


There was some indication early on at Operation 


CROSSROADS that some bioassay samples were 


taken. However, we could not find these 


records. And in looking at some of the data 


that were publicly available, the quality of 


the data and the reliability of the bioassay 


data for the CROSSROADS tests were questioned. 


These measurements were done on board ship with 


available survey instruments. There did not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

22 

appear to be any long-range plan as to how 


these things would be measured. There's some 


evidence of beta activity and things of that 


nature, but the data themselves do not appear 


to have a very good pedigree. 


There was some off-site air sampling. These 


are primarily environmental samples that were 


not taken with the intent of reconstructing 


doses to the civilians. They were more on off-


site locations, and although they could be 


related to the workers -- or the civilians' 


exposures, we felt that it would be difficult 


to do so. Or actually we felt there was 


insufficient data to be able to do that. 


Okay, let me go back -- let me go back to the 


DTRA program again. You know, given that we 


found nothing available for the traditional 


bioassay sampling that we could reconstruct 


internal doses, and we felt the area monitoring 


-- the environmental monitoring data were 


insufficient, we knew that DTRA was using an 


approach that related the external dose results 


on the badge, or some synthesis of the 


environmental exposures using environmental 


monitoring external data, to estimate the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

internal dose. In other words, they take the 


badge reading, and it would be directly 


converted through this sophisticated computer 


program into an internal exposure. It's a very 


sophisticated model, blast -- it uses blast-


specific source terms based on the composition 


of the individual fallout constituents. And 


once the ground-based contamination is 


assessed, then there's a resuspension factor 


applied to estimate the internal dose. 


This had some appeal to us. We did look 


through it. But in reviewing this whole 


program we did recognize that the National 


Research Council did review this process in 


2003, a fairly lengthy review was conducted by 


the National Research Council, and there were a 


number of findings that were identified that -- 


that questioned the credibility of the upper 


bounds that were raised. The model themselves 


-- the model itself was not said to be 


insufficient or scientifically not valid. It's 


just -- it was stated, and I'll quote you one 


of the things that concerned us in this report. 


It's stated that the sources of uncertainty -- 


sources and uncertainty of estimating 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

24 

radionuclide concentrations in depositive 


fallout based on external photon exposure have 


not been evaluated, and the reliability of the 


methods is unknown. 


In other words, they were saying we don't -- 


we're not -- necessarily this is -- this is not 


a valid technique, it's just that, you know, 


one has not gone and looked at all these 


sources of uncertainty and determined if it's 


really valid for making these assumptions. 


They never questioned that DTRA could not put 


an upper bound on this program. In fact, I 


would like to state that in our review, we were 


evaluating this program only for purposes of 


reconstructing doses with sufficient accuracy 


under EEOICPA. We were not questioning DTRA's 


ability to reconstruct doses for purposes of 


their program. 


But that finding was one of the findings -- 


there were -- but I should point out, and this 


is one of DTRA's concerns, is that there were a 


number of findings that indicated that doses 


could be either underestimated or 


overestimated. Now our evaluation report 


focused on the overes-- or underestimating 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

25 

conditions, but -- because we have to be able 


to put an upper bound -- there is no real -- 


there was really no real indication in the 


report, though, about the magnitude of the 


corrections in either direction -- or the 


uncertainties in either direction. So it's not 


obvious to us from reading the report that 


these things -- these countervailing factors 


would cancel each other out and indeed the dose 


reconstructions are sufficiently accurate. 


DTRA did put together a plan of action and in 


June of 2004 it indicated that they were going 


to evaluate these issues and complete their 


analysis in a two-year time frame, which would 


put their completion date somewhere around June 


2006 -- possibly six months or so from now. 


 Interim guidance was issued in July 16th by 


DTRA that allowed them to move forward with 


dose reconstructions. And in that interim 


guidance, which is attached to the letter that 


Dr. Blake sent NIOSH, it indicates that they 


believe that if one multiplies internal doses 


by a factor of ten, they would be sufficiently 


bounding and put a credible upper bound on the 


doses and would allow them to move their dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

reconstructions forward. We've not seen any 


scientific analysis of that, and until such 


time as we get a handle -- at least NIOSH feels 


-- on the magnitude of the individual sources 


of uncertainty, the fact of multiplying the 


doses by a factor of ten would not constitute 


sufficient accuracy under the requirements of 


our program. 


So in looking through all of the data -- the 


available data and the DTRA program and the 


evaluation report supplement, we revised the 


class definition at Pacific Proving Grounds 


from covering Operation HARDTACK 1 to the 


definition you see on the screen, which is all 


employees of DOE, DOE contractors or 


subcontractors employed at the Pacific Proving 


Grounds from 1946 through 1962 who were 


monitored or should have been monitored for 


exposure to ionizing radiation as a result of 


nuclear weapons testing at the Pacific Proving 


Grounds. 


We did find evidence that sources of internal 


exposure existed from these multiple 


detonations of weapons, but the exposures to 


the civilians were a result of contamination 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

caused by inhalation of fallout from the 


nuclear detonations, not from the direct 


exposure to the criticality event that occurred 


when the weapons were detonated. And we 


believe that, in looking at all the records, we 


currently lack access to sufficient bioassay or 


air monitoring data to estimate doses 


associated with inhalation to radionuclides at 


the Pacific Proving Grounds. 


 We further believe that health was endangered. 


We cannot estimate these doses with sufficient 


accuracy, and the evidence indicates that 


workers may have accumulated internal exposures 


through episodic intakes of radionuclides; that 


is, from the resuspension of fallout and the 


direct inhalation of fallout from the weapons 


tests. These are internal doses. By nature 


they are defined as chronic exposures and not 


acute exposures, so therefore we -- we are not 


suggesting that mere presence at this site 


would constitute membership in the class. But 


250 days, as defined in the regulation, would 


constitute membership. 


And this is the proposed class definition 


again, and a summary. We're summarizing the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

class as 1946 through 1962, it's not feasible 


to reconstruct doses with sufficient accuracy, 


and we believe health was endangered. 


With that, I would be happy to answer any 


questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, Jim. Let me 


begin with a question on a slide, and I'm not 


sure you actually put this one up. It's in our 


book. The NIOSH claims tracking system 


indicates there are 65 cases that would be in 


this class. Is that number still correct -- in 


the class as redefined? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, that's right. I must have 


skipped right through that one in my... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I'm curious about the next 


line where it suggests that you actually have 


completed some dose reconstructions, which 


seems somewhat counter to what you said, so -- 


DR. NETON: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- just explain to us what that's 


about. 


DR. NETON: Yeah. This is not -- this has 


happened with other SECs where, you know, we 


have moved cases forward where we thought 


possible. In reviewing the SEC petition 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

evaluation -- SEC petition, though, we've come 


to the conclusion that the ones that we've 


processed and moved forward have not been done 


with -- reconstructed with sufficient accuracy. 


This has happened at Y-12. In the past when 


we've added classes we've actually moved a few 


cases out, but in looking at the bigger picture 


and the definition of sufficient accuracy, 


we've come to that conclusion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. My next question has 


to do with the information sources. And I 


noticed in the DTRA document -- I suspect maybe 


Dr. Blake will speak to this, but there's a 


suggestion that there are additional data 


sources that NIOSH failed to look at. Could 


you speak to that issue? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, there was a suggestion that 


there were some data sources available -- I 


think in particular it was related to the 


bioassay data themselves, related to some 


medical files and some Naval transmissions and 


that sort of thing. We have not seen those 


data sources. They speak to the internal 


bioassay data that we were looking for. And in 


fact, in talking with the DTRA program 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

personnel, at least the contractor personnel, 


they don't use those pieces of information 


either in their program. Those are -- they 


solely reconstruct doses based on the external 


badge results. But we have not actually seen 


the bioassay records. 


I did mention that the CROSSROADS samples were 


taken early on, done on board a ship, and I 


think that the program itself had some 


questionable pedigree as to how -- how well 


they could measure what they were trying to do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there any indication that those 


sources would be readily available in a 


reasonable time period that would allow one to 


at least examine them for usefulness, or... 


DR. NETON: I'd actually defer to Dr. Blake on 


that question 'cause the -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe when Dr. Blake speaks to -- 


DR. NETON: This is fairly new information that 


we received -- yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I understand. We just -- we 


just got the document I think a couple of days 


ago. 


Okay, Dr. Melius and then Mark. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, Jim, I have a question. 
I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

don't know whether it may be a question that 


Department of Labor will need to answer, but I 


believe this is the first time we've dealt with 


a -- hear a SEC definition involving a 


"monitored or should have been monitored", and 


I'm just -- like to understand how that 


determination is -- is made. I believe, if I 


understand the process, once -- if this were 


accepted, et cetera, that the Department of 


Labor would be making that determination? 


DR. NETON: That's correct. 


 DR. MELIUS: But I'm trying to understand here 


how that -- how that (unintelligible). Is that 


done by job classification in some way or job 


description, or what is... 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I might have to defer the 


answer to that question to Department of Labor, 


but the decision to narrow the class to workers 


who were monitored or should have been 


monitored was based after some discussion with 


the Department of Labor and to focus the 


membership in the class on those who were 


actually exposed. If one does not have that 


proviso there, then people who were never even 


working in the presence of radioactive 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

materials that were employed working on the 


Pacific Proving Grounds project, for example, 


would be eligible. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- and that part I 


understand. I'm just trying to understand how 


you make it operational -- how you make that 


determination 'cause -- particularly in this 


situation where it might not be straight-- at 


least not -- it doesn't seem straightforward to 


me, that's all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Here's Pete --

 MR. TURCIC: That is the --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Turcic from Labor. 

 MR. TURCIC: That is the provision. That exact 

provision is in all of the Congressionally-


mandated SECs. 


 DR. MELIUS: Correct, and that's why -- 


 MR. TURCIC: Yeah, and the way we handle that 


is by occupation. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. TURCIC: At Amchitka the way we handled it 


was by policy. We were able to identify that 


there was ionizing radiation after the first 


shot, so then presence after the first shot. 


At the other sites it's the -- was badged or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

should have been badged applies to what does 


the policy -- what would a policy now -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, okay. 


 MR. TURCIC: -- and then work backwards from 


there. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. No, it just -- I realized 


it was in the Congressionally-mandated SECs, 


but we -- we -- it's never come up here and 


we've never discussed it and I'm just trying to 


understand how it would work. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Jim, I was just wondering, you 


mentioned -- either in the presentation or in 


your written statements -- that you have 


reviewed some cases, some DTRA cases? 


DR. NETON: Just -- well, there was one case we 


were provided a dose reconstruction. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, just one case. Okay. And 


did it include internal dose -- 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- estimates? 


DR. NETON: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And those were done -- I mean... 


DR. NETON: They were internal dose estimates 


based on -- I don't recall if it was from the 


badge reading or the estimated, you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

34 

external exposure from environmental conditions 


or survey measurements. But nonetheless it 


would take the external result and estimate the 


internal result from -- from the external and 


report -- I think it's -- I'm -- it's a 50-year 


committed dose to the organ as a result of that 


exposure, so... 


 MR. GRIFFON: And it's your feeling that the 


models that they used or are currently 


implementing couldn't credibly bound doses for 


the claimants in this population? Is that... 


DR. NETON: That's correct, it could not bound 


the internal exposures based on the -- based on 


the current -- the NRC review that was done 


that questioned the reliability and the 


uncertainty of the method that had not been 


demonstrated, we are not certain that the 


exposures that are calculated for internal dose 


at this point for this program are sufficiently 


accurate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Roy DeHart. 


 DR. DEHART: Jim, I'm curious about the numbers 


that we're seeing up there, 65 case 


definitions. Yet over the period of time I 


would assume that there would have been perhaps 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35 

1,000 civilians all told through there. Has 


there been any active program at this point in 


time to notify or contact prior workers? 


DR. NETON: Not to my knowledge. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any additional questions for Jim? 


 (No responses) 


If not, thank you, Jim. 


PRESENTATION BY PETITIONERS, DANIELLA KARO
 

Then we will hear from the petitioner, Daniella 


Karo. And incidentally, Daniella, I'm not sure 


what the time is out there but I know it's very 


early in the morning. 


 MS. KARO: Well, actually it's just, you know, 


past 6:00 a.m. here, 6:18, actually. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we appreciate your -- 


 MS. KARO: Well, I appre--


 DR. ZIEMER: -- early morning (unintelligible) 


in being with us. 


 MS. KARO: Well, thank you for allowing me -- 


am I -- do I have the floor? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You may make your presentation 


now, if you would, please. 


 MS. KARO: Well, I don't really have a 


presentation, per se. I understand there is -- 


I read through the -- through the findings, you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

36 

know, to my understanding. I realize that 


NIOSH has evaluated the data sources and they 


were not able to come up with any sources that 


were reliable enough to -- to make a 


determination about the inhalation and 


ingestion, et cetera. And then there's this 


very elegant discussion about the various 


formulas that DTRA is using and so forth. I 


cannot really ask too many questions about this 


because that is definitely not my area of 


expertise. 


But I do have a question to ask because perhaps 


maybe I need a little bit clarification on 


this. I noticed that NIOSH, in their summary 


of their findings, seems to be bound by the 


requirements that the workers were employed in 


the Pacific Proving Grounds or in any other 


places have to have established a number of 


work days aggregating at least 250 days worked 


there within the parameters established for the 


class. And I know -- apparently this is -- 


Congress -- that decided to -- to limit, you 


know, to 250 days, and apparently it specified 


originally that there were a class of employees 


that were included in the SEC and this were the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

employees at the -- that were employed at the 


gaseous diffusion plants and that's where they 


(unintelligible) at least 250 days before 


February, 1992. On the other hand, they have 


allowed employees who were employed on the -- 


on Amchitka Island and were exposed to ionizing 


radiation, and yet they were not required to 


have an aggregate of 250 days. So can you 


address some -- you know, some of these issues? 


I'm concerned about this upper limit of 250 


days because how did Congress come up to this 


number, an aggregate number? What happens to 


individuals who were there for several weeks or 


let's say an aggregate of 150 days. How are 


those people treated and why is an upper number 


required in order to establish this kind of a 


class, and yet there is an exception on the 


Amchitka? These are my questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very good question, and we will 


ask NIOSH to address that. Let me mention that 


one might argue that in -- at the test site 


that the episodic nature of some of these might 


argue for a different or modified approach to 


that, as opposed to a workplace where there 


might be chronic exposures. But there is some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

rationale nonetheless for the 250, which itself 


has a kind of built-in arbitrariness, but is 


related to other sites where that's been the 


criteria based on Congressional mandates. But 


I'll let Jim speak to the issue particularly 


here. 


DR. NETON: I thought you did very well, Dr. 


Ziemer. 


I can't -- this is Jim Neton. I can't speak to 


the legislatively-created Special Exposure 


Cohort requirements for Amchitka Island. I 


really just -- I have no idea as to why 


presence was included at Amchitka and why 250 


days was required at the gaseous diffusion 


plant -- I mean why it was different than the 


gaseous diffusion plants. I can say that 


within our regulation the 250-day requirement 


is there for essentially what you would 


consider almost chronic-based exposure, not 


something that happened as a discrete event 


that endangered the health of the employees 


within a short time frame where they would 


experience very large exposures. And I think 


the example provided in the regulation is such 


as at a criticality event or incident. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39 

Now one would argue that a nuclear detonation 


is a criticality incident, but these people 


were removed from the blast itself. I think 


there was some exclusion zones around the 


blast. And their exposures by nature were 


chronic exposures to fallout that had either 


deposited -- either inhalation of the fallout 


or from resuspension of the fallout that had 


been deposited on the ground, incorporated in 


their bodies, and the dose is delivered over a 


-- a time frame, a chronic time frame, not over 


a very discrete period. So that's the basis 


for our ruling -- or our decision, rather, that 


the 250-day criteria applied. 


 MS. KARO: I see. I understand what you're -- 


when you're talking about the chronic exposures 


versus the episodic nature, and yet -- I mean 


somewhere in the report we're talking -- and I 


think there was a reference to -- particularly 


to a shot I believe in Enewetak, and may have 


been the very last one, I'm not so sure, where 


-- I'm trying to find my notes here -- in fact 


the (unintelligible) at Enewetak Island 


apparently was closed for one day because of 


the fallout from an atmospheric test at Bikini 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

40 

Atoll designated for -- that was in May 12, and 


you're talking about resuspension -- so let me 


ask you a question. So you're saying that 


basically an individual had to be chronically 


exposed in order to be affected while the 


episodic nature kind of removed -- I mean 


basically the individuals who were episodically 


exposed may not have had any, you know, 


exposures that may provoke any cancers. That's 


the way I understand it. 


DR. NETON: I'm not sure I'm following your -- 


 MS. KARO: Well, my feeling is that you need a 


chronic exposure -- we're trying to define how 


we -- you know, Congress came up with this, you 


know, 250 days. And so individuals -- it 


sounds like you need individuals to be 


chronically exposed in order to ultimately, you 


know, come down with a cancer versus just an 


episodic nature, which there is a likelihood 


that the individual would not have that kind of 


effect. 


DR. NETON: I think I agree with what you're 


saying in the sense that one -- the dose that's 


delivered to devel-- to produce the cancer, if 


it is received over a period of time from a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

episodic nature -- and I don't necessarily say 


it's chronic, but just over a period of time -- 


one needs to accrue that dose to endanger the 


health, then the 250-day criteria would apply. 


If the dose was received in a very short 


duration, in a discrete incident, then the -- 


you know, the presence or the time frame would 


be reduced to whatever that discrete time frame 


was. But by nature, again, these are internal 


exposures that are delivered over a period of 


time. 


 MS. KARO: And is Amchitka Island an exception? 


DR. NETON: Amchitka Island was legislatively 


added by Congress, and yeah, it's -- it's 


different than what we're -- it's different 


than the regulations that we're working under 


for this program. 


 MS. KARO: And the reason that they were 


excluded from this 250 days was because? 


DR. NETON: I can't answer that question. 


 MS. KARO: I see. That was my concern, because 


I'm sure that there would be individuals who 


probably were not there, you know -- or some 


individuals may not have been there for an 


aggregate of 250 days, and my concern is how 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

are those individuals going to be treated, on 


an individual basis or how is -- how are their 


petitions going to be treated, if indeed this 


is not -- you know, if this regulation -- this 


rule is going to be maintained and -- or 


applied? 


DR. NETON: I think, as with other SEC classes, 


if a claimant does not -- or a case does not 


have 250 days aggregate exposure, then they 


would be referred to NIOSH for dose 


reconstruction. 


 MS. KARO: And (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: What he's saying is there could 


still be an attempt, in an individual case, to 


do a dose reconstruction. 


DR. NETON: That's right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: May -- may or may not be feasible, 


though. 


DR. NETON: We would do the dose 


reconstruction, given the techniques that we 


have available that we believe are sufficiently 


accurate. In this case we're suggesting that 


we can't do internal -- we -- at this present 


time we do not have a technique to do dose -- 


internal dose reconstructions with sufficient 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43 

accuracy. 


 MS. KARO: And how is this going -- if an 


individual is going to be considered outside of 


a class, I suppose if this goes -- you go ahead 


and accept this as a class, if an individual 


does not meet that upper requirement of 250 


days -- aggregate days, then my understanding 


is you would be doing it on an individual 


basis. And yet -- and yet how will you be able 


to establish, you know, the dose exposure if 


you don't have, you know, fully access to -- to 


internal exposure, as well? 


DR. NETON: That's a very good question. We 


would attempt to reconstruct the doses that we 


knew we could. And in this case, we believe 


that the external dosimeter results are -- are 


acceptable or sufficiently accurate for our 


purposes of reconstructing doses, and we would 


attempt to do an external dose reconstruction. 


But we would not at this time, if this class 


were added under these conditions, be able to 


do internal dose reconstructions. 


 MS. KARO: And that's only for the people who 


were in the class, but what about when you have 


to -- to deal with them on a one by one basis 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

44 

because they did not meet that upper 250 days? 


Since you don't have a formula yet that would 


allow you to figure out the internal dose, then 


how are you going to, you know, treat those on 


an individual basis then? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps the --


 MS. KARO: How will you be able --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- question is if they don't -- 


 MS. KARO: -- to actually establish with some 


accuracy the -- the dose exposure? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, perhaps it's -- the question 


of if you have a case where you say actually we 


can't reconstruct this dose and the 250-day 


criteria is not met, what happens to that case, 


is --


 MS. KARO: That's correct. 


DR. NETON: Well, all we're saying at this 


point is we cannot accurately reconstruct the 


internal dose. We would reconstruct the 


external dose to the extent we could, and we 


would use -- use that as a basis for our dose 


reconstruction. But we would not be able to 


add any internal dose because we don't have 


tools --


 DR. ZIEMER: And if the --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45 

DR. NETON: -- to do that at this time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If the person didn't meet the POC 


criteria based on external, then the case would 


be denied then --


DR. NETON: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- apparently. Additional 


questions, Daniella? 


 MS. KARO: No, that's -- that's all I have. 


BOARD DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION DR. PAUL ZIEMER


 DR. ZIEMER: Then let us hear from Dr. -- or 


let me see if --


 MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to ask Jim -- 


Jim, can --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you describe the nature of -- 


of the work for these employees? I mean -- you 


know, it seems like we're looking at this 


(unintelligible), you know, they were there 


during the fallout, I guess, but they probably 


went back in and did recovery operations or -- 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I've looked at some of the 


cases that we have in our files, and it's all 


over the map. There are these scientific 


couriers who were there delivering documents 


and materials and things of that nature, all 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

the way to people who were operating land-


roving equipment, driving all over the -- the 


islands and that sort of thing for -- for a 


long -- long periods of time, reconstruction 


activities, sort of construction activities, so 


there -- it covers the waterfront of different 


types of activities, from what I can see so 


far. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius, another question? 


 DR. MELIUS: No, that was actually my question. 


 DR. WADE: Jim, I would --


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew Wade. 


 DR. WADE: -- just like to maybe add some -- 


this is Lew Wade -- some clarification to the 


petitioner's question and -- and the answer. 


And please correct me if I'm wrong. What I 


hear you saying is that it is your belief that 


the people who might be considered for this 


class were, in our opinion, shielded from the 


high radiation associated with the particular 


blasts. We -- we believe that they would have 


been removed or in some way shielded from that 


radiation. 


DR. NETON: I wouldn't necessarily use the word 


"shielded", but removed -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

47

 DR. WADE: Removed. 


DR. NETON: -- is probably a better -- a better 


term. 


 DR. WADE: And then they would be exposed then, 


after the blast, in their work that they would 


do and that's why we consider the -- the 250 


days as appropriate. 


DR. NETON: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In fact, I might add that in the 


other episodic cases such as the Oak Ridge 


criticality accident, the main issue was the 


external dose, so you wouldn't specify someone 


had to be there 250 days. If they were in that 


room when the excursion occurred, then they 


were qualified. 


DR. NETON: That's correct. 


PRESENTATION BY DTRA, DR. PAUL BLAKE


 DR. ZIEMER: Now we'll hear from Dr. Paul Blake 


with DTRA. Dr. Blake, welcome. 


DR. BLAKE: Dr. Ziemer, members of the Board 


and interested parties, thank you for affording 


me this opportunity to address in the next five 


minutes -- briefly, I hope -- how the 


Department of Defense currently generates dose 


reconstructions with regard to the Pacific 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

48 

Proving Ground, and our plans for the future. 


I serve as the program manager for the Nuclear 


Test Personnel Review program at the Defense 


Threat Reduction Agency. The Defense Threat 


Reduction Agency, otherwise known as DTRA, is a 


combat support agency of the Department of 


Defense. DTRA functions as the executive agent 


for DOD supporting radiogenic disease claims 


brought forth by former DOD personnel who 


participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons 


testing from 1945 through 1962, served as U.S. 


occupation forces of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or 


prisoners of war in the vicinity of Hiroshima 


and Nagasaki when the detonations occurred in 


1945. 


DTRA supports the Department of Veterans 


Affairs and, to a lesser extent, the Department 


of Justice in evaluation of radiogenic disease 


claims. The NTPR program has been in existence 


since 1978, and has accumulated a wealth of 


documentation associated with these nuclear 


events, and developed methodologies for 


generating dose reconstructions associated with 


these events. 


 Generating dose reconstructions for atomic 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

veterans is technically challenging. This fact 


was extremely well-documented in a recent 


National Academy of Sciences National Research 


Council report published in 2003 that Dr. Neton 


referred to. It's entitled "A Review of the 


Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense 


Threat Reduction Agency". 


My agency has been busy in responding to the 


challenges noted in this publication. We have 


modified our procedures to overcome these 


challenges. In fact, at the next meeting of 


the Veterans Advisory Board on Dose 


Reconstruction, a board very similar to yours 


in function but mandated by Congress to oversee 


the programs that I serve as program manager, 


I'll be reporting on the status of that 


progress. 


One of the consequences of the NRC report was 


for the Department of Veterans Affairs to 


return to DTRA over 1,200 previously-generated 


dose reconstructions and request that we rework 


these dose reconstructions, correcting the 


challenges noted in the 2003 NRC publication. 


DTRA is in the process of responding to this 


request. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

However, my agency is greatly concerned that 


the dose reconstructions be performed in a 


timely manner since many of our veterans are 


quite elderly and do not have many years to 


live. Consequently we have made a conscious 


decision to immediately address these concerns, 


modify our procedures and begin releasing 


revised dose reconstructions while the formal 


process of publishing articles concerning our 


revised techniques in peer-review journals and 


releasing revised and new DTRA technical 


reports on our public web site has preceded us 


at a slightly slower pace. 


 This decision has led, in my opinion, to the 


current situation being discussed today. 


Namely, one government agency, NIOSH, has 


determined that it lacks sufficient information 


to estimate internal doses associated with 


Pacific Proving Ground personnel, which a 


different federal agency, DTRA, is currently in 


the process of performing this function. 


It is my expectation that this problem should 


be resolved by the end of calendar year 2006. 


DTRA, via its contractors and contract staff, 


has drafted numerous technical reports in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

response to the problems noted in NRC 2003. In 


the next few months papers and reports will 


begin to be published, and we expect the 


majority of these will be released by the end 


of this calendar year. 


On another note, I would point out that many of 


the internal dose challenges noted for the 


Pacific Proving Ground become even more 


challenging when addressed for the Nevada Test 


Site, specifically the scenario of the nuclear 


detonation blast wave resuspending radioactive 


fallout from previous detonations, complicating 


the determination of inhalation dose. 


In conclusion, both NIOSH and this Board are in 


a difficult position. You need to make a 


timely decision, but you are faced with the 


current dilemma of two federal agencies 


proposing two very different solutions for 


personnel who potentially inhaled radioactive 


material while performing their duties during 


atmospheric nuclear weapons testing at the 


Pacific Proving Grounds. It is my hope that 


this challenge will be resolved by the end of 


this calendar year. 


 And with that, I'd like to open up -- if you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

52 

have any questions. 


BOARD DISCUSSION/RECOMMENDATION DR. PAUL ZIEMER


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Paul. Could you --


aside from the issue of whether one can 


reconstruct those doses or not, does DTRA have 


a 250-day requirement on the individuals for 


whom you reconstruct the dose? 


DR. BLAKE: Well, the requirements actually 


come from both the Department of Veterans 


Affairs and Department of Justice with regard 


to verification of -- to -- are they 


participants at that place. And these were 


mandated by Public Law. They're published in 


the Code of Federal Regulations. But they are 


different than your 250-day program. They're 


much more of an episodic nature. The way 


they're laid out is per -- it differs only 


slightly between the Department of Justice and 


Department of Veterans Affairs Code of Federal 


Regulations. They are defined for each atomic 


-- atmospheric atomic test, and there's a 


certain period of time that, if a person was in 


that area, then they qualify. 


What we do in the Department of Defense is we 


research the records -- and the military kept 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

very good records back then -- and we pull up 


and verify, at least in the case of the 


Department of Veterans Affairs, if that person 


is a participant. And dependent upon the type 


of radiogenic disease they have, they either 


qualify for presumptive compensation or, in the 


-- we have basically just primarily two cancers 


now that we do dose reconstructions for, the 


non-presumptive nature. It's primarily 


prostate and skin cancer. And so almost all 


the rest of the cancers are then presumptively 


compensated through the Department of Veterans 


Affairs. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then is presence at, for example, 


as little as one test -- would not exclude one 


from being considered. You would basically 


look at whatever dose you calculated for that 


person? 


DR. BLAKE: And that's exactly correct. What 


we find in the case of the Pacific Proving 


Ground is most of the military personnel 


involved were part of the Navy, especially 


those early tests like Operation CROSSROADS. 


The reason we did those tests was to look at 


weapons effects. And so the military put a lot 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

of people in place where Atomic Energy 


Commission, the group that you're looking at, 


had a lesser number of people. Our total 


population is on the order of about -- when we 


look at both Nevada Test Site and Pacific 


Proving Ground, about 250,000 people, some of 


which are now deceased. But many of those 


sailors, for instance at the Pacific Proving 


Ground, were on a ship and were there for only 


a month or two before they departed. So they 


certainly would not have qualified for the 250­

day figure that's being discussed here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Can you give us some idea of the 


extent to which the individuals who qualify 


were -- are the doses -- do they tend to be 


primarily external doses? Are these -- I'm 


really getting at are these -- are the veterans 


-- do they tend to be in closer than our 


workers, or maybe we don't know that, but would 


they tend to have a bigger contribution from 


external dose, or do you know what the relative 


contributions are, by your calculational 


methods, external versus internal? 


DR. BLAKE: By our calculational methods, in 


general the external dose is the larger of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: The driver. 


DR. BLAKE: The driver. There are a few 


exceptions where internal dose is -- is a 


concern. But the challenge that Dr. Neton 


noted and that we have to over-- we have to 


dwell with is that internal dose is -- is tough 


to reconstruct based on the data that we have 


from 50 years ago, and so the uncertainties are 


normally larger with that component than the 


external dose. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And what I'm trying to get at is 


if the external is the driver, given its 


uncertainties, it may be, in the DTRA case, 


that the internal, even -- even if it's not 


well known, has very little impact. Whereas in 


our case, if our workers are driven by the 


internal dose, that may become an overriding 


issue in knowing that value with a degree of 


accuracy that become much more important. I'm 


-- I'm not sure that's the case. I'm kind of 


asking, is there a difference in how the 


veterans were positioned and stationed during 


these tests versus these other workers? Did 


they tend to be forward, for example, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

therefore subject to the external exposures 


more than these workers? Do we even know that? 


I think -- I would think we would, but... 


DR. BLAKE: I can address that just roughly in 


that many of our veterans were Navy personnel 


on board ship close to the tests. I think -- I 


believe more of the Atomic Energy Commission 


personnel were back on the actual islands. 


There were military personnel back there -- for 


instance, communications people and so forth -- 


too, but probably the majority of veterans were 


actually on ship for -- for this testing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. So there may be some 


differences in -- in how these populations were 


exposed that might argue for perhaps some of 


the reasons that we may have to approach them 


differently, is all I'm saying. I'm concerned 


myself about two agencies sort of having 


different answers or different solutions, but 


maybe there's a reason for that. 


 Dr. DeHart. 


 DR. MELIUS: Paul, can I ask, if it's okay -- I 


have a sort of follow-up question to that that 


I'd like to get clarified. And that is, are we 


really dealing with sort of a mixed group, at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

least on our side, some of whom will have the 


char-- characteristics of exposure of the -- 


the Navy, the military personnel, and some of 


which will have other -- you know, another -- 


you know, sort of a longer term exposure that 


would be different and -- and -- and do we 


really need to think about how do you separate 


those two groups out or at least make sure we 


address both those groups appropriately. So 


some group may be more appropriately addressed 


through sort of the -- the veterans program and 


the other sort of addressed looking at sort of 


this chronic exposure maybe where internal 


exposures would be more -- more important. And 


that's what I'm trying to wrestle with is -- is 


understanding sort of what's the right way of 


navigating this and -- and at the same time 


that balance that you just said, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's the other side of the same 


question, and I think that unless one has that 


kind of specificity in the information 


database, it would be very hard to separate 


that out. Any comment on that, Paul? 


DR. BLAKE: I can't comment too effectively 


'cause I'm not really familiar with the Atomic 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

58 

Energy Commission personnel, sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Roy DeHart. 


 DR. DEHART: My question is parallel to that, 


basically. I am reasonably certain you had 


Naval personnel on the ground doing contractual 


activities -- Seabees and others who were doing 


things along the atoll or islands -- similar to 


the exact work that the civilians were doing. 


They got out of the way when you got ready for 


the blast. Then they went back in and did 


whatever they did, creating dust and various 


other things. So how are you handling those 


civilians -- or those military who were on the 


island -- not on the ships -- and would have 


been extracted to some degree before an 


explosion? 


DR. BLAKE: We do the calculations on -- that 


were addressed here with regards to internal 


dosimetry, but primarily it's due to 


radioactive fallout, usually in almost -- most 


of the cases. We do look in every -- 


individual case whether there is concerns about 


instantaneous radiation from the actual nuclear 


detonation, but it -- in the vast majority of 


cases our military personnel at the Pacific 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

Proving Ground were far enough away -- in the 


case a mile or two -- that there was no 


radiation from that instantaneous explosion. 


And so radioactive fallout becomes the greatest 


concern. And there were a few instances in the 


Pacific Proving Ground where the winds shifted, 


went the wrong way, and we actually had some 


acute skin burns where -- and there's a classic 


case, of course, of a Japanese fishing ship 


that occurred. But some U.S. service personnel 


at some radio communications stations also 


received some significant doses. 


Other personnel who've received some 


significant doses, a little different than your 


question, sir, but were some of our pilots and 


people in aircraft that actually through -- 


flew through the radioactive plumes to pick up 


data. But we certainly did have people on the 


islands doing some similar, I believe, 


exercises in locations that probably the Atomic 


Energy Commission personnel were at, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I just have a que-- I think you 


sort of answered this question. There is some 


statements in -- I forget if it's your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

60 

statements or Dave Kocher's statements on the ­

- the internal dose and basically indicating 


that some of -- of these -- some of the 


findings and the -- and how to resolve those 


findings have not been implemented at this 


point -- or fully resolved, I guess. And in 


the interim -- I think, if I'm reading this 


right. In the interim, you have some of these 


rules of thumb that you've put in place. Is 


that correct? 


DR. BLAKE: We call --


 MR. GRIFFON: And then -- and then by the end 


of 2006 you're expecting to have answer or -- 


or full resolution to -- to these issues. 


DR. BLAKE: The NRC report really pushed for 


doing full uncertainty analysis on our doses, 


and obviously that -- it would be the 


preferable method to do. The other approach, 


though, is to calculate a maximum radiation 


credible dose, and when we do our doses we 


calculate out to a 95 percent credibility limit 


on our calculations that we then forward over 


to the Department of Veterans Affairs to do the 


probability of causation calculation with 


similar software to what this program uses. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

What we ended up doing because of these large 


uncertainties was basically assigning a factor 


that we believe would be at least at the 95 


percent or greater. A constant we try to 


apply, give the benefit of the doubt to the 


veteran. So in some cases where we may not be 


able to say exactly the uncertainty is at the 


95 percent confidence level, we actually do -- 


we -- we argue that we put in place a value 


that may in fact exceed that. 


Where the challenge has occurred with NIOSH is 


that we've moved ahead -- implemented these 


procedures, but we've not published them 


publicly on our web site. And if you're a 


different federal agency looking at the 


procedures, you look at some of our 


publications -- and one was alluded to on how 


we calculate internal dose based on the 


radioactive fallout. That publication is from 


1985. We're in the process of releasing a 


revised one here in the next few months. We've 


gone through four to five major software 


revisions on that particular code, bringing in 


place ran-- values up from like ICRP-30 to 


ICRP-66 and 67 on inhalation dose and so forth, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

modernizing both the hardware and software. 


But it is a sophisticated code and -- and a lot 


of assumptions have to go into it because of 


the circumstances we are under. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I guess the -- the rules of 


thumb, particularly this factor of ten that's 


sort of mentioned in those statements, this -- 


this -- there is statistic basis to that -- 


DR. BLAKE: Yes --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) gets you up 


near your 95th (unintelligible). 


DR. BLAKE: We also have some other 


publications that are -- that'll be published 


shortly where we've done bounding analysis on 


those values. Do we want to move away from 


those factors, that's the reason we called them 


interim guidance? Yes, we do. But we had to 


do that, concerned with our veterans that we 


had to move ahead with our dose 


reconstructions, too. And we believe we gave 


conservative factors at that time. But you'll 


be seeing shortly other publications that our 


contractors have worked on where we looked at 


these concepts of fractionation and -- and 


bounded them and believe, in most cases, that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

this is a good figure. 


 DR. WADE: I have a comment to make here. 


Well, first I'd like to thank you for being 


here, and I'd like to thank you and your agency 


for being so professional through this 


behavior. You've been forthcoming and you've 


approached this issue in a way that I think 


brings honor on all of us that are federal 


employees. I think you do high quality work 


and I think no one disputes that. 


As a federal employee in this case I'm not 


embarrassed by the fact that two federal 


agencies take a different position. What -- I 


mean that's the way it happens sometimes when 


you start at different points and move towards 


a common objective. 


I am heartened by the fact that this debate is 


happening in a very open forum and we're 


allowing the issues to be vetted fully. So I 


thank you for your participation in that and 


congratulations to your agency on its program. 


DR. BLAKE: Thank you, sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Board members, any 


additional questions? We want to give a full 


airing to any of the issues, issues that are 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

raised, I think particularly by DTRA in terms 


of this difference between the agencies and 


some differences in how things are calculated. 


But there are some even legal differences in 


our laws that mandate certain things, so it's ­

- it's not a bad thing that we're not exactly 


parallel. We are trying to work together and 


work closely on approaches as we move forward, 


but this is one where, in part, there's also a 


timeliness issue. It may be that one could say 


well, let's wait six months till they come out 


with their new guidance or whatever time it is, 


and you have that issue is somewhat like we had 


at Mallinckrodt, that there's -- it's a moving 


target. So one of the timeliness factors I 


think does come into play and we have to think 


about that in terms of action, or lack thereof. 


Henry, and then Richard. 


DR. ANDERSON: I guess the question I would 


have is it sounds like there are some methods 


that have been developed, they just haven't 


been made public or they're not completely 


polished, and I guess my question would be is 


it possible for those contractors or for NIOSH 


to look at that and see if that approach 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65 

appears to be -- would meet their needs. 
I 


mean we've -- in other petitions we've had, you 


know, NIOSH saying they haven't done it yet but 


they can do it, and then we said we'd like to 


see some examples. But it seems to me there 


may -- they may be far enough along in their 


development of some of these that if NIOSH took 


a look at that -- it wouldn't yet be public -- 


if that could be shared I think that might be 


an interesting -- or a possibility to -- to see 


whether or not the -- I mean NIOSH is saying 


they don't think such an approach is possible, 


so you know, when these come out, then it 


either is possible or it isn't, so I wonder if 


some kind of discussion with those, if -- if 


that was possible, it wouldn't have to be -- 


wait till it's peer-reviewed and published. 


Some part of a peer review would be NIOSH 


taking a look to see what they're doing and if 


the justification for how their interim have 


been going are consistent with a more rigorous 


science they may bring to bear might be a -- 


one thing that could be done quite quickly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think at the moment you're not 


necessarily proposing that, but asking for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

perhaps a reaction from -- 


DR. ANDERSON: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) saying it can't be shared -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- from the two agencies -- 


DR. ANDERSON: -- (unintelligible) it's out of 


the --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and -- and while we're letting 


them ponder that a moment, Rich, did you have 


an additional follow-up on that? 


MR. ESPINOSA: No, not necessarily on that. 


was just -- I'm trying to wonder in my mind, 


what were the living conditions? Did these -- 


were these workers shipped to the islands and 


then taken off or did -- were there -- living 


at the island? I'm trying to think of like 


time-weighted averages. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. I'm not -- I don't know 


if either -- either Paul or Jim can answer 


that, or the petitioner, whether -- whether Ms. 


Karo can answer that or knows, but -- 


DR. NETON: I really can't -- can't answer that 


question. The problem with these cases is very 


much like a lot of our cases where we -- we 


lack a lot of information. We have a case 


file. We have a -- potentially a job title, 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

and we know the person wore an external badge. 


We know how long they were there, and that's 


about it. So unlike --


 DR. ZIEMER: Whether they were back and forth, 


you don't really know. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, and some of that is very hard 


to figure out. On top of that, unlike the 


military records, which tend to be a little 


better as far as where these people were 


stationed, we have statements that say the 


person was there, and we don't know where they 


were and we kind of know in general what they 


may have done. So we have access to far less 


information about what these people were doing 


and where they were than even the military may 


have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, while you're at the mike can 


you react to Dr. Anderson's question? 


DR. NETON: I suppose. I think --


 DR. ZIEMER: Or maybe Larry Elliott will react. 


DR. NETON: Maybe I'd better let Larry react to 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let the boss react to that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: No, I don't want to answer, but I 


will try to answer. I think it certainly is a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

possi--


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we're just exploring, is 


this something that we should consider? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It is a possibility. I was just 


conferring with Dr. Blake, and I think we need 


to -- it's a possibility that -- that could be 


pursued, but it's going to result in time 


expended. And we're okay with that if that's 


the pleasure of the Board. I think -- you 


know, my concern that I expressed to Dr. Blake 


was what kind of perturbation would our 


entrance into your review and approval process 


present to you, and they have an advisory body, 


as well. So my answer is yes, it's possible; 


it comes with consequences and some of those 


consequences we may not be able to fully 


characterize at this point in time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Dr. Blake, you mentioned you would 


be presenting to your advisory board. When 


would that be? 


DR. BLAKE: The interactions I have with my 


advisory board are basically two-fold. On all 


these technical publications that we're pushing 


ahead, they are looking at them now. I have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

not asked for a -- we have actual sub-groups on 


our advisory board, and the sub-group that 


interacts and does technical reviews -- in my 


board there's a subcommittee number one on dose 


reconstruction that's simply focused on our 


processes. The chairman is a member of the -- 


one of the members of the NRC report from 2003. 


They're providing a peer-review process of the 


publications that are generated by my agency 


through some of our contractors, too. But I 


will --


The second part of it is when we actually have 


formal Veterans Advisory Boards. Our next one 


is due in June of this year, or July, in 


Austin, Texas. And at that time I will be -- 


as Dr. Neton mentioned, we released a report to 


Congress from both the Department of Veterans 


Affairs and Department of Defense, mandated by 


a Public Law, and I need to get back with them 


on our get-well plan formally at that time 


where we are. And so the majority of my formal 


comments at that time will be in June. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I -- two comments. First 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

addressing Richard's question, I think it was a 


very good point and -- about where did -- where 


were these people living when they were at the 


site and where they stayed. That was actually 


one of the rationales for the -- Amchitka not 


having the 250-day requirement was the people 


doing the work there lived on that island and 


there were questions about their exposures sort 


of 24 hours a day and sort of how do you weight 


that and so forth. So I think that should be 


pursued, and I would also wonder whether there 


wouldn't be information -- probably not in the 


interviews 'cause I don't think that's asked 


for -- but some follow-up. I don't know to 


what extent the claimants are still alive, how 


many there are, if any, or -- but some of that 


kind of issue could be pursued and information 


sought from the survivors or from other -- 


other information that -- that might be 


available, so I think that deserves follow-up. 


I think back to Henry's comment and really sort 


of -- sort of question, I think -- understand, 


you know, the reason that yeah, there's some 


initial time limits, but -- and there's also an 


issue that we may not be able to totally 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

reconcile the way that dose reconstructions are 


done in these two programs because they have 


different legislative mandates and follow 


different methods. However, to the -- I would 


think we need to be very careful about sort of 


institutionalizing a difference between the 


programs and -- and the way that they're 


approaching or utilizing certain types of data, 


simply 'cause we didn't want to, you know, wait 


a few months for, you know, a report to get 


finished or -- or do a complete evaluation of 


that. And we would be making a decision on a 


Special Exposure Cohort that would -- is going 


to go forward for a long period of time, and 


yet it may turn out that in a few months or 


several months that some of these issues that 


we used as the basis -- might use as the basis 


for approving a Special Exposure Cohort may be 


addressed, and therefore we would have 


institutionalized a difference that wasn't 


really part of the difference in the 


legislative mandates for these two programs. 


And I think there's a need for -- I would -- 


even though there may be differences in the way 


people worked and there are differences in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

laws, I think we need to be -- try to maintain 


as much consistency as we can, and certainly 


not have sort of unnecessary inconsistency 


between the two programs. So I would certainly 


feel much more comfortable waiting until we 


could try to clarify some of these technical 


issues. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Roy DeHart. 


 DR. DEHART: Again this issue of disparity 


between populations. We're sitting in Oak 


Ridge, and I can assure you there is an 


enormous emotional difference between people 


who are awarded at X-10 and who are awarded at 


K-25. That difference is painful for many of 


these people and what we -- it sounds like 


we're potentially going to be doing, there may 


be grounds to do it, creating two different 


systems for same kinds of exposure settings, 


and I think we need to move slowly there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Rich, I think your -- Rich 


Espinosa's comment is one that it would be nice 


if that could be followed up on. It seems to 


me that it's fairly obvious many of these 


people were indeed in place 24 hours a day on 


those atolls and so on and therefore maybe one 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73 

would consider looking at the 250-day issue in 


a somewhat different way for this kind of a 


situation. Larry Elliott. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you. I just want to make 


two comments and -- just for the Board's 


consideration and understanding. At least 57 


claims that you see on the screen that remain 


to be dealt with, some of those come in in the 


first batch we received in October of 2001. 


Given that, you know, I'd just like to put that 


on the record for those claimants who are 


awaiting a decision. 


Secondly, I would note in the three that have 


been treated with dose reconstructions, one of 


which that was found to be compensable had 


multiple skin cancers and we did that using 


external dose. The other two were found to be 


non-compensable and I don't know the exact 


cancer type, but I think both of those were 


cancers that are in the presumptive list. So 


just offer that for your information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Michael. 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, on page 31 of 38 of the 


petition in the book, the one dated 10/20, I 


believe it is, at the top of the page it talks 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74 

about (reading) considerable attention to 


recreational activity, personnel in the Entwok 


(sic) island had two movie theaters, a TV 


station, a hobby shop, a swimming pool, beach 


areas designated for swimming, a skeet range, 


playing fields, basketball and handball court ­

- handball courts and a service club with a 


snack bar, library, game room, rooms for adult 


education classes and clubs. Competitive 


leagues were organized for many sports. 


 Number one, it would take quite a length of 


time to construct such facilities, I would 


thing. And number two, I don't think that they 


would go to that trouble, it wouldn't appear to 


me, unless there was some extended amount of 


time that people would have to stay on the 


islands. 


 DR. ZIEMER: A good point, Michael. I want to 


ask -- maybe I'll ask Paul Blake if he can 


answer this, but -- or maybe Jim Neton can. We 


know that in some cases -- for example, the 


Marshall Islands where there was a shift in the 


wind and the fallout really was concentrated on 


one of the islands; they actually evacuated 


those folks and they essentially have been off 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

the island ever since. It's been decades. 


These locations were ones where the -- I don't 


believe -- they were not in the direct cloud or 


they wouldn't have had the people stationed 


there. They must have gotten more peripheral 


fallout, I presume. Do we have some idea of -- 


there were some air samples, were there not, 


that give us some idea of the levels, and 


you're using some kind of resuspension factor 


so you must know something about these levels 


that people were living with every day. And we 


were, incidentally, in this country, as well. 


DR. BLAKE: We did take extensive radioactive 


fallout measurements there. But there were 


cases, as I mentioned earlier, where the wind 


did shift and there were some unexpected 


consequences and that, you know, was 


challenging to us. But most of that data not 


only comes from film badge, but it's also from 


the actual measured fallout -- some of which 


was on land, but some of it was in -- obviously 


in water samples, biological samples. There 


was one group that was mentioned in Dr. Neton's 


review, the University of Washington, that has 


been doing this work for many years. So we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

have a number of different sources of data that 


we use in actually calculating this, but 


radioactive fallout was measured fairly 


effectively. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think -- goes back to my ­

- my first question I had about how people 


qualified as -- issue of being badged, or 


should have been badged. And I guess my 


concern also would be that we may not be 


qualifying people in the correct way for a 


Special Exposure Cohort that -- it's not saying 


that one might not be justified for some of 


these simply based on the amount of information 


available on their activities and -- and taking 


into account where they lived, some of -- some 


of the other uncer-- certainties here, but I 


just think we would be able to do a much better 


job and much fairer job for everybody involved 


if we had more information to be able to work 


from on -- on this and in -- particularly some 


of -- either the additional scientific work 


that's underway for the veterans, as well as 


some further information, some further work on 


the part of NIOSH in sort of describing this 


group of people in this -- this cohort and sort 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

77 

of figure out how we -- how we best address the 


different groups that there are there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda Munn. 


 MS. MUNN: I don't know that what I'm thinking 


adds anything to the debate, but there's no 


question that there's -- in my mind, that 


there's a difference between military personnel 


and civilian personnel. There's a difference 


in the way they were assigned and the way they 


are monitored -- were monitored. 


If the real question here is did people do the 


same work, one set being military and the other 


being civilian, and are those individuals with 


the same exposures being treated differently, I 


submit that it is unlikely we are ever going to 


be able to have that information clearly in 


hand at this stage. It was too far removed 


from the actual events. 


If it is also true that for most individual who 


were long-term on the island the primary driver 


is likely to be internal exposure, then our 


choice appears to be to accept the fact that we 


will never be able to assess parallel 


activities between military and civilian 


personnel in that group, and accept the fact 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

that we will be unlikely at this moment to 


evaluate what internal dosimetry -- excuse me, 


what internal doses were experienced by the 


civilian workers who were there. 


If we cannot do that, then our civilian workers 


were in -- are in a definitely different 


category than the military workers whose 


exposure was characterized as being more 


external than internal. 


I don't know how long we can postpone making 


the decision, and whether we can be very sure 


that the DTRA process is going to be applicable 


for us. If -- if we delay based on the 


assumption that it will be and it's not, then I 


suppose what we have to be reconciled to is the 


fact that we will have to propose to those 


people who are -- have been waiting for four 


years for us to move forward that we're not 


ready to move forward yet, we're still working 


on it. That seems a very difficult choice, for 


me, and I don't see any real assurance that 


we'll be a lot better off once we see what Dr. 


Blake has been able to complete with his 


program. 


Am I -- am I too far off, Dr. Blake? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79

 DR. ZIEMER: All the way. 


DR. BLAKE: Not completely, but I would like to 


mention -- during the Pacific Proving Ground 


exercises the -- and detonations there, it was 


a joint task force that worked together of both 


the AEC personnel and DOD personnel. For 


instance, external dosimetry was -- used the 


same types for both. And in fact the -- the 


records now for the most part are maintained -- 


for the military, it's jointly funded by both 


DOE and my program out in Las Vegas where we 


have many of the older film badges that were 


used. We've kept actual physical hard copies, 


plus documentation of the film badges. Doses 


are actually maintained out at the Nuclear Test 


Archive in Las Vegas. It's a DOE-run facility 


that I jointly, as program manager, co-fund. 


So during all those years, at least with 


external dosimetry, we tried very much to have 


consistent methodologies between both AEC and 


the military. Internal dose, though, does 


remain a challenge, and there was no good 


solution really at that time. 


 MS. MUNN: And --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Presley has some related 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

comments. 


 MR. PRESLEY: As one that did not work on an 


above-ground shot, but one that has worked on 


quite a few below-ground shots, you would have 


a large contingency of what we would call at 


that time (on microphone) AEC or ERDA personnel 


that would be the group of people that would be 


handling not only the shot material but the 


shot equipment and things like this. You did 


have DOD there. They were -- and they had the 


Seabees and things like that, as Roy mentioned. 


They were more of an observer. At that time 


and present today, your AEC/DOE still handled 


the everyday business of working with the 


material, putting the weapons together, getting 


it up in the air or down in the hole, whatever 


it was. We did that as a -- as an atomic 


worker contractor. 


Then we would go back in and do the sampling 


after the shots, and I have no reason to think 


that things were any different, especially from 


1956 to '62 when they were working on 17, 35 


and 36 shots at a time. You would have a 


tremendous people (sic) getting ready for each 


one of these shots. You didn't just go in in a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

day and pop one and walk out and go back the 


next day and pop another one. It didn't happen 


that way. 


So yes, they were -- there was a lot of people 


there. They did have permanent party 


facilities. I would think that there's 


probably about the same thing we used to have 


at NTS in the early days was you lived in 


quonset huts or tents and it was -- there would 


be quite a few people working on that kind of 


stuff. I -- I would not think that it would be 


any different -- might be a whole lot more 


modern, but it would be any different from when 


I started out there in the '70s than it was 


back in the '50s or the '60s. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But you're suggesting then that 


the -- the military portion would be more 


transient than the -- the folks doing the shots 


are actually the AEC ERTA/ERDA folks. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


DR. BLAKE: If I could comment, from Operation 


CROSSROADS on, even though it was a joint task 


force, there were really two functions. The 


AEC people were focused on the weapon. And the 


military was there primarily for weapons 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

effects. We needed to understand those effects 


and how our troops are going to move ahead. 


And so it was a different function with the two 


groups. But in the Pacific Proving Grounds 


many of those tests were weapons effects tests 


and we brought in large amounts of military 


personnel because of that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you. Okay, Gen 


Roessler and Jim Melius. 


DR. ROESSLER: I feel like Wanda, I'm not sure 


what I can add to this. But I do want to say 


what I'm thinking at this point. I'm pretty 


much convinced that we're dealing with two 


different populations, for the most part, and 


that would persuade me to go ahead and vote for 


this petition at this time. 


However, I've been sitting here listening to 


the comments from everybody around the table 


and from Dr. Blake and Dr. Neton, and I've been 


going back and forth with my vote. I feel very 


uncomfortable with that. I feel like maybe I 


don't have enough information at this point in 


time to -- to vote, even though if right now I 


voted, it would be for the petition. And I --


I wouldn't be concerned that much about the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

difference in the agency approaches because I 


think it is a difference in the type of 


exposures and type of population. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Jim, were you going to answer? 


DR. NETON: Well, I was going to comment on 


something a couple --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure. 


DR. NETON: -- of persons ago, so if I could -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton, go ahead. 


DR. NETON: -- interject here just briefly. 


I'd like to follow up on the issue of the joint 


task force and badging. It's true what Dr. 


Blake said that there were joint task forces 


and the badging was handled by -- and 


consolidated in Nevada Test Site. In fact, of 


the 57 people that I show we have external 


badge results for, that's where we obtained the 


results, the film badge results resided in the 


Nevada Test Site. 


 The difference I see is that these people, even 


though they were on the joint task force and 


were badged, we have very little information 


about what they were doing and where they were 


the entire time. It's also complicated by the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

fact that from 1958, I believe, the REDWING 


series, not everybody was badged. They started 


badging people I think around -- after '58, and 


prior to '58 it was what we have come to call 


in this group "cohort badging". You know, 


certain people were badged. So then we faced 


the dilemma of having to reconstruct external 


dose to civilians based not -- knowing of their 


whereabouts and using environmental survey 


results to reconstruct the external, to then 


turn around and reconstruct the internal based 


on the reconstructed external. It just 


multiplies on top of each other. So it is a 


somewhat more difficult process, I think, than 


what you would see with the military. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, actually I think it -- were 


sort of two issues that I think need to be 


addressed, but I think the main point is that 


DTRA -- Dr. Blake says that they have some 


significant, you know, technical information 


currently being developed that would address 


the main technical basis for the SEC 


determination, the issue of internal 


monitoring. And as I understand it, they've 


offered to -- now to make that information 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

available to NIOSH and -- in some way through ­

- through a process. And I would think that it 


would be appropriate for us to delay 


consideration of this petition till our next 


meeting. In the meantime, ask NIOSH to address 


two things. One is work with DTRA and, you 


know, take a look at this technical information 


and make a determination, is it going to 


address the concerns or not, and sort of -- you 


know, what is -- what would be the timing for 


that, how -- how long would it take before this 


information could or could not be used for dose 


reconstructions -- is it going to be adequate 


(unintelligible) that. And I -- again, for the 


reasons I've said before, I -- I'm just 


uncomfortable -- you know, if in a few month 


suddenly our concerns have been addressed. 


Secondly, I do think we need to also address 


this 250-day issue. With the people living 


there -- again, it may not be significant 


exposure because of location or whatever, it 


may be able to be taken into account in the 


dose reconstruction, but it is something 


different and I think we need to be careful for 


this circumstance in terms of how we qualify 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

these -- these people. So I would ask NIOSH to 


also address that over the next -- between -- 


by our next meeting, at least to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm --


 DR. MELIUS: -- come back with some additional 


information to us on -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not going to recognize that at 


this point as a motion, but as a possible 


motion. I want to hear from Roy DeHart and 


then Richard Espinosa. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


 DR. DEHART: I've just been signaled that I'm 


on. I propose the following motion: That the 


Board thank NIOSH for its report related to the 


SEC petition; further that the Board move to 


table further discussion to a time certain to 


allow possible conferences and discussion 


between NIOSH and DTRA and to address other 


issues as previously stated by the Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This in essence is a motion to 


table. Is there a second? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is not a debatable motion. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

We must immediately vote. This is a vote to 


table, and it's to a time certain, which is the 


next face-to-face meeting. 


Just by way of instruction, if you do not wish 


to table -- and there could be an alternate 


motion, such as Jim suggested. If you do not 


wish to table, which ends our debate today, 


then you will vote no. If you wish to table 


with a time certain that it comes off the table 


at the next meeting, you will vote yes. 


 Any procedural questions? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, we're going to vote by hand -- raising 


your hand. All in favor of tabling the action 


-- motion to table any action on this petition 


-- actually the Chair's going to change the 


ruling. We have nothing -- we do not have a 


motion before us to table. Roy, we don't have 


a motion before us to table. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) don't have a motion 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. MELIUS: There's nothing to table. 

 DR. ZIEMER: There's nothing to table, 

actually. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88

 DR. DEHART: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What we would -- what we would 


need would be --


 MR. PRESLEY: A motion --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- a proposed action, which could 


then be tabled. 


 DR. DEHART: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have -- we have a petition 


evaluation report, which in essence comes as a 


request for action. I guess -- we still need a 


motion to -- to do something with that, so -- 


but hang on, we'll get a comment from Jim. 


DR. NETON: I'd just like to make one comment. 


I want the Board to understand the reality of 


what's going to happen if this thing gets 


pushed to the next Board meeting, which is -- 


in discussion with Dr. Blake, it's unlikely 


that we will -- NIOSH will receive any peer-


reviewed report in time to be -- to evaluate 


any changes on our decisions here. So it may 


quite be likely that I would come back here in 


April and say we -- we have not seen anything 


fleshed out in detail. 


Now there may be some preliminary approach 


design documents that he could provide to us, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

but there is unlikely to be -- in time for the 


next Board meeting, us to have additional 


information to weigh in on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mike? 


 MR. GIBSON: It seems to me that we as a Board 


have been very concerned about time limits, the 


180-day time limit, dragging things on and 


doing things in a timely manner, and I just 


wonder if tabling this motion would buy us 


anything. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. We're not actually 


discussing a motion to table 'cause it's not 


discussable (sic), but you're talking 


theoretically, if one were to make such a 


motion -- okay. 


Robert Presley. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'd like to make a motion that we 


accept this petition, as read. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that's a valid motion. Is 


there a second? 


 MS. MUNN: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now we have before us an action. 


That is a motion to accept the petition -- and 


actually it's to accept the recommendation of 


NIOSH to grant the SEC petition, and if this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

90 

motion passed it would be a recommendation to 


the Secretary of Health and Human Services that 


SEC status be granted. This is a debatable 


motion. 


Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: I have one question for NIOSH, or 


for Dr. Blake, whoever is best qualified to 


answer it. Can we make the assumption, or do 


we know for a fact, that resuspension and 


internal dosimetry for individuals on those 


islands would vary from location to location on 


the islands? Can we make that statement? 


DR. BLAKE: Yes, they certainly do vary. 


 MS. MUNN: They vary. 


DR. BLAKE: Yes, they do vary. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Can you hear that, Ray? 


 MS. MUNN: If they vary, then I am back to my 


comment earlier. I do not believe it is 


possible for us to ever define where these 


workers were at any given time on that island 


and therefore cannot, with any degree of 


specificity, come to a conclusion with respect 


to their internal dose. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you are speaking for the 


motion. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91

 MS. MUNN: I am speaking for the motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would just like to point 


out on Wanda's point that that is not one of 


the claims that -- one of the claims that NIOSH 


has made in its evaluation. I don't believe 


that point was raised, unless I -- 


DR. NETON: That -- the resuspension factor is 


one of the key issues raised by the National 


Research Council. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


DR. NETON: And the uncertainty associated with 


the resuspension values -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Is it uncertainty of location or 


uncertainty --


DR. NETON: Not on location, but uncertainty of 


-- of -- well, they were talking about 


uncertainty of resuspension on the ships versus 


the island and such, but there is significant 


uncertainty associated with the resuspension 


factor. 


 DR. MELIUS: I was more reminding us that if we 


were going to use that for a basis we needed to 


-- for an SEC, we needed to capture that 


specifically in however we make our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

recommendation. 


My question, though, is back -- I thought I 


understood Dr. Blake to say that he was going 


to make some of the technical work that was 


currently underway available to NIOSH prior to 


it being published in peer review journals, and 


I --


 DR. WADE: Dr. Blake --


 DR. MELIUS: -- the sort of discrepancy here in 


terms of -- of what Jim and Larry just said and 


what I understood you to say earlier, I'm just 


trying to understand it and -- 


 DR. WADE: Could you please clarify, sir, just 


what would happen between now and the end of 


April in terms of interactions between your 


staff and NIOSH toward shedding light on this 


issue of internal exposure? 


DR. BLAKE: When I get back tomorrow to my own 


agency, I can release some of our preliminary 


design documents on how we're actually moving 


towards these publications. Many of them are 


basically written, but they need to go through 


a formal peer review process, not -- at least 


for the DTRA technical reports, before we 


publish them and put them perhaps in a slightly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

more readable format. Then our plans are to 


actually put them through our subcommittee 1 


dose reconstruction board to have an outside 


look at them before we move ahead. The report 


of greatest concern right now is one that's due 


out -- that I release some preliminary 


information on tomorrow, but it's only about a 


two-page summary. The report itself is an 


update on the FEDOS, the software code model. 


That's not due for publication until about the 


end of March or April. And then with a peer 


review process, let's assuming a month in 


putting it in, it won't be ready for your next 


Board. I can't promise that. And that's the 


reason I said end of calendar year 2006. There 


are a number of other technical reports that 


are -- that may be a little more advanced than 


that. But once again, I do have only limited 


number of personnel to get them out in a timely 


manner. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Paul, are you able -- well, number 


one, you're saying you have no guarantee that 


the end product will look like what you have 


now since there's some iterations that you have 


to go through. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

DR. BLAKE: True. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number two, are you able to 


personally commit your agency to sharing this 


information outright with another agency at 


this point? Are you authorized to make that 


commitment? Well --


DR. BLAKE: I believe -- I believe I am, sir, 


and I don't --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I just want to make sure. 


DR. BLAKE: -- I don't expect that'll be a 


problem, but whenever you ask someone in the 


federal government --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


DR. BLAKE: -- are you authorized, we always 


take a breath before we --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as far as you know. 


DR. BLAKE: As far as I know, sir, yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Roy DeHart and then Henry and 


Rich. 


 DR. DEHART: I propose the motion that you have 


previously heard as to tabling. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We now have a motion to 


table this motion, and that proposed motion to 


table was to table to our next meeting. And 


was there a second to the motion to table? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95

 DR. MELIUS: I'll second that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, this is a motion to table 


the action that was proposed by Mr. Presley. 


All in favor of tabling, raise your right hand. 


One, two, three, four, five. 


 Those opposed? 


One, two, three, four -- 


MR. ESPINOSA: Abstain. 


 DR. ZIEMER: One abstention. We have -- what, 


we have five --


 DR. WADE: Five to four with one abstention. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- four and one. The Chair voted. 


We have ten. Tabling requires a majority of 


those voting, but the abstention is not 


ignored. We have -- it still requires six, I 


believe, is -- unless I get overruled, 


Parliamentarian-wise. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Could I change my vote? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You want to change your vote? 


Yes, you can. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'll vote to table. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We now have six votes -- 


 DR. WADE: Let's take a -- let's take the vote 


again, please. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Raise your right hand if you're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

voting to table. 


One, two, three, four, five, six. Okay. 


THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Ziemer, who changed 


their vote? Was that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Presley. The vote is to table 


the action until the next meeting, and it is so 


ordered. 


Now I'm going to have a brief recess, and after 


the recess I'm going to ask for a motion that 


will provide instruction to NIOSH as to what 


should occur between now and the next meeting, 


since the motion to table leaves things in a 


vacuum. Okay? And we'll get the additional 


comments at that point. 


Let us recess for 15 minutes, and then 


reconvene. Okay, Daniella, if you're still on 


the line, you may wish to remain. We will try 


to provide some instruction to NIOSH on -- as 


to what should occur. 


 MS. KARO: Thank you, sir. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:30 a.m. 


to 10:55 a.m.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let us proceed. We do have 


some additional action to take. Having tabled 


the action on the Pacific Proving Grounds, we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

do need to provide some instruction as to what 


we expect to happen within the next week. 


Also, in terms of information from another 


agency, we do have some advice from legal 


counsel. I'm searching for the right word, but 


Liz, can you advise us in terms of what we can 


and can't do with information from another 


agency? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Certainly. Liz Homoki-


Titus, (unintelligible) HHS. I'm not sure it's 


advice, it's just a concern that you need to be 


aware of that if another department provides 


information to HHS that is not publicly 


available -- I guess I just want to expand on 


Dr. Ziemer's question to DOD regarding the 


release of that information to the Advisory 


Board and to the public. Obviously when 


information is released to a FACA advisory 


board -- can you hear me okay? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) and start over. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Off microphone) You want me 


to start again? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Excuse me? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ray, does she need to start again? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

THE COURT REPORTER: Oh, no, you can go 


forward. Thanks. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Okay. When it's released to 


a FACA advisory board it's obviously made 


public, or we would have to take the Board into 


closed session to consider that information, so 


I just want you to be aware of those possible 


options. And I don't know if the 


representative from DOD wants to address that 


concern --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- regarding that 


information --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- at least be aware --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- becoming public. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- aware of that, and it may be 


that if, for example, we suggest that NIOSH get 


together with DTRA on that issue, that Jim 


Neton or his designee can report back to us 


whether they found they could utilize whatever 


is being done, without necessarily releasing 


information at that point would be another 


option. But I guess we do want to make sure 


Dr. Blake is aware that if the information 


fully comes to the Board, it gets made public. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

So that's -- that's the point. 


Now the Chair will recognize Dr. Melius for 


purposes of making a motion. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would like to -- not only 


would I like to, but I am making a motion -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: He doesn't like to, but he will do 

it. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- to make a motion to request 

that NIOSH follow up on three items in 


relationship to this petition. 


Number one was what Liz was just referring to ­

- to, which is to gather further information, 


evaluate the current technical work that's 


underway at DTRA, that -- particularly that 


addressing the internal dose monitoring and 


evaluation of internal dose. 


Number two, we're asking NIOSH to conduct 


further evaluation of the types of work and the 


work pattern for people working at the Pacific 


Proving Ground, particularly we're trying to 


better understand what types of work, what the 


nature of the exposures for people in different 


work categories, and also addressing the 


clarification on -- to what extent people were 


living there and people who were in residence 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

there, how they were exposed as part of their 


living condition. 


And number three, specifically how to address 


this -- best to address this issue of 


qualification for the cohort, both the 


classification as having -- being monitored or 


likely to -- I think it's supposed to be 


monitored or should have been monitored, in the 


context of these workers. And also whether 


it's appropriate to it if people were residing 


at the site and exposed during their 


residential hours, should the 250-day 


requirement be adjusted to take that -- that 


into account for those workers. Remember, we 


have a 250-day work-day requirement and that 


may not quite make sense in terms of -- it 


doesn't make sense in terms of people are -- 


are living on the site and exposed, you know, 


24 hours a day, essentially -- at least in some 


manner, and I think that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- that needs to be --

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- addressed in the context of the 

--
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101

 DR. ZIEMER: Now you can --


 DR. MELIUS: -- Special Exposure Cohort. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- speak in support of the motion 


in a moment, if it's seconded. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second to the motion? 


MR. ESPINOSA: I second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now it's seconded. Now any 


debate, pro or con, for this motion? Anyone 


speaking in favor of the motion? 


THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. Ziemer, who seconded? 


 MS. MUNN: DeHart. 


 DR. ZIEMER: DeHart? Okay. DeHart seconded. 


Jim, I'd like to ask you to clarify for the 


Chair, when you said address the qualification 


of should have been monitored, what are you 


asking for there? Is that a different request 


than the evaluation of the 250-day requirement? 


 DR. MELIUS: I think it's part of that. It's ­

- it's slightly different, but in light of the 


different groups that are being evaluated or 


could be potentially included in a Special 


Exposure Cohort, I just wanted to make sure 


that that particular requirement makes sense 


for -- is appropriate for different groups. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

And I think we're going to find that there were 


a number of different categories of workers 


here and I just want to make sure that's 


appropriate for those -- those workers. Again 


we go back to (unintelligible) what does it 


mean to be monitored or should have been 


monitored. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do we know whether -- where that 


monitoring occurred for people stationed -- was 


that monitoring 24 hours a day as opposed to a 


usual worker that leaves their badge at the 


gate when they leave a facility? Paul, do you 


know the -- whether that was the case or not? 


Or did these workers wear their badges -- 


DR. BLAKE: (Off microphone) I don't know 


(unintelligible), sir. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Paul says he doesn't know. 


Robert? 


 MR. PRESLEY: When I worked at the test site 


you wore your badge everywhere you went. You 


were on the site all the time, 24 hours a day, 


7 days a week. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, that's helpful. 


I think Rich Espinosa and then Michael. 


MR. ESPINOSA: I speak in favor of the motion. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

My biggest concern is the -- under the law, the 


250 days. I believe that if it was passed 


today, that's -- might -- the way the law reads 


that a lot of these people that are defined 


under the class would be denied on the basis of 


250 days, so I speak in favor of the motion and 


I do believe that this Board could look for 


ways and get around and make a recommendation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Michael. 


 MR. GIBSON: I also speak in favor of the 


motion and I would just offer perhaps a 


friendly amendment. If there's not issues 


dealing with classified information or if there 


is, if there's a member of the Board that's got 


the proper clearance, could a member of the 


Board be present during these discussions with 


NIOSH and DTRA? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think the answer is yes, that 


could be done. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: It's not a question of 


clearance, it's simply that these are internal 


documents that haven't been released to the 


public, so yes, a working group of the Board 


could work with NIOSH in those meetings. Can 


you hear me okay? But it's a matter of when it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

becomes public if it's given to all of the 


Board. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other questions or 

comments? 

 (No responses) 

Are you ready to vote on the motion then? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Was that accepted as a friendly 


amendment? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Very friendly. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So point one of the motion asking 


-- asking NIOSH to gather further information 


from DTRA on internal dose would include the 


caveat that this be done with a Board member or 


members present. 


Are you ready to vote on the motion? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All then in favor, say aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Those opposed, no? 


 (No responses) 


Any abstentions? One abstention, Wanda Munn 


abstaining. 


 Motion carries. Thank you very much. I don't 

105 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

know if Daniella's still on the line. 


 MS. KARO: Yes, actually I am. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Do you have any additional 


comments --


 MS. KARO: No, not really. Not at this point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then we will make sure that we 


make arrangements to have you present at the 


next meeting, by phone if necessary, and 


perhaps we can arrange the schedule so that it 


is not quite so early in the morning. 


 MS. KARO: Yes, it would be greatly 


appreciated. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And we thank you for 


participating with us today. 


 MS. KARO: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You're welcome to stay on, but you 


probably would rather do something else. 


 MS. KARO: That's true. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wouldn't we all. 


 DR. WADE: Not me. 


CLASSIFIED DATA: IMPACT ON BOARD SEC
 

PETITION RECOMMENDATION
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Next on our agenda we have 


an item called classified data, impact on Board 


SEC petition recommendation, and Dr. Wade has 


that issue. And I believe we have a document ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

106 

-


 DR. WADE: I've given out a --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that's been distributed called 


"Classified Information". 


 DR. WADE: And it's on the table. Before I 


begin that, I would like to, for the record, 


point out that I'm operating on the belief that 


following this meeting the new members will be 


duly impaneled. So if you were to start to 


consider Board members listening in or 


participating, then we have the new members to 


consider. 


Okay, to the issue on the agenda. I think 


you'll all remember this issue. It was at one 


point a very emotional issue. On your behalf ­

- you had written to the Secretary of HHS. On 


your behalf I met with representatives of the 


Secretary's office and representatives of HHS's 


Office of General Counsel last week to -- to 


try and bring this issue to a head. Based upon 


those discussions they empowered me to come to 


you with this position. So the position I 


bring you is the HHS position, and let me walk 


you through it. 


 Under classified information, the first bullet 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

says (reading) Based upon legal advice of the 


Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, 


it has been concluded that non-disclosure to 


the public of classified or restricted 


information does not qualify a class for 


addition to the SEC if a sufficiently accurate 


dose reconstruction is otherwise feasible using 


classified or restricted information. 


I pointedly asked the people I met with if this 


opinion from the Department of Justice was 


rendered in writing. I was told that it was 


not. It was a verbal opinion of the Department 


of Justice that formed the basis of this 


written statement that HHS is making. I asked 


them again, and they assured me that there is 


no written opinion of the Department of 


Justice. 


The second bullet says (reading) Therefore, the 


Secretary -- read HHS -- has no legal authority 


to grant a Special Exposure Cohort petition 


because classified or restricted information 


was used to determine that a sufficiently 


accurate dose reconstruction can be done. 


 Again, that bullet relates to the Secretary and 


the way the Secretary must act. We'll talk at 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

the end about my recommendation as to how you 


should act. 


And then the third bullet, (reading) The 


Department of Justice has also indicated that 


access by claimants or the public at large to 


classified or restricted information on which 


HHS may rely in making its feasibility 


determination is not required by due process 


considerations. 


Item: Petitioners have the opportunity for an 


administrative review within the Department (as 


provided by the SEC Final Rule). 


And Item: If the petitioner files a lawsuit 


and the court concludes it is necessary, the 


court can review the classified information ex-


parte, in camera. 


So again, you had asked about the due process 


considerations. Now, again, this isn't new 


information I'm bringing to you, but this is 


information that last week I went to the 


Secretary's representatives and HHS Office of 


Legal Counsel, and this is the information they 


asked me to bring to you. 


The only thing I would add, on the second 


bullet, it speaks to the Secretary's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

responsibility. As your Designated Federal 


Official, I think it is most appropriate that 


you be mindful of the Secretary's 


responsibility in your framing of 


recommendations to the Secretary. I in no way 


limit your ability to say what you think needs 


to be said. I do think you need to be mindful 


of the Secretary's responsibility, again, as 


you frame recommendations to the Secretary. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And let me ask, Board members, do 


you have any questions for Lew on this issue? 


Michael. 


 MR. GIBSON: If that's the guidance from the 


Office of Legal Counsel, what's the resistance 


to putting that in writing so that it can be 


made public and -- to the Board and to the 


public so -- in an effort to be transparent? 


 DR. ZIEMER: This --


 DR. WADE: I think this --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- this is public. 


 DR. WADE: This is public. 


 MR. GIBSON: But that's just the HHS opinion of 


what they --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GIBSON: -- they determined the Office of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

Legal Counsel said. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GIBSON: I'm wondering why the Office of 


Legal Counsel is resistant to put it in writing 


for us to look at. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I don't think it -- I can't 


answer that, Mike, though I think the opinion 


that's relevant is the opinion of the Secretary 


and the Office of Legal Counsel of HHS, and 


they're willing to put their recommendation in 


writing. They based that in part on 


discussions with the Department of Justice, and 


they do not have that in writing. I can go 


back and ask them again to try and get it in 


writing. It's the wish of the Board with 


regard to that. They do not have it in writing 


at this point. 


My principal concern is the Board be not 


limited in its ability to do its business, and 


this is what I wanted to be able to bring to 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I mean I would argue that 


this does limit the Board in its ability to do 


its work -- essentially disenfranchises us in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111 

circumstances where there is classified or 


restricted information that, you know, many or 


-- if not all members of the Board would not 


have -- have access to and would preclude us 


from essentially evaluating NIOSH's review of 


the SEC petition. We would not be able to, you 


know, perform any meaningful review of the -- 


of that -- of that petition. So I would argue 


that it doesn't nec-- it certainly doesn't 


facilitate the Board doing anything. In fact, 


it -- it restricts and, in essence, could 


disenfranchise us in certain -- certain 


situations. 


I'd also remind us that we do have I believe a 


letter that has never been answered, other than 


this recent verbal transmission to you, Lew, 


requesting that written opinion. I mean -- and 


for reasons that in order to -- for the Board 


to be able to operate. I think we had good 


reasons then. I just I believe summarized some 


of them that I -- trying to remember back 


there, there could have -- there were more -- 


additional ones, but I don't think it's a very 


workable approach, given the nature of this 


program. And particularly it certainly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

undermines any transparency for this program 


and any credibility that the Board adds to the 


recommendations. And are we supposed to just, 


you know, defer any review of a NIOSH recommen­

- recommendation on an SEC simply 'cause we 


won't be able to technically review it or do an 


adequate review of it in circumstances -- and 


those circumstances, do -- what happens, does 


it just pass through? Do we write a letter 


saying sorry, we can't do anything? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Liz? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I would just remind the 


Board that EEOICPA actually gives the 


Department of Energy authority to provide Q 


clearances for Board members. So I don't think 


this limits Board members' access to classified 


information. This limits public access to 


classified information. 


 DR. WADE: And we do have Board members who 


have clearances. It could be that you wish to 


increase the number, and then we could work 


towards that end. The -- the model we've been 


working on is that there are Board members with 


Q clearances that would be privy to this 


information and then could report in summary to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

113 

the Board. If you feel there needs to be a 


greater number of Board members so cleared, 


then we could pursue that. 


 DR. MELIUS: That's certainly one element of 


it, but it would certainly change how the Board 


would review and (unintelligible) and I guess, 


given some of the conflicts of interest, it -- 


it's -- it would require a large number of 


people. We have some significant problems, for 


example, on Y-12, by the way, as to who would 


be -- if anybody would be available to review 


the -- review classified information. Do that. 


 DR. WADE: I understand. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We actually have had some 


difficulty in getting people Q cleared in the 


past. I know that it's a pretty long, tedious 


process and -- is there -- is there any -- one 


of the -- one of the problems is, unless you do 


it in advance -- if you wait till you have a 


petition in hand and say we need Q-cleared 


people, it -- it -- the time factor is very 


long. How practical is it to think about 


getting a large number of this Board Q-cleared? 


 DR. WADE: We could start now. It's not 


reasonable to assume that it would be done in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

114 

any short term. 


 DR. MELIUS: And can I also just add that even 


with Q clearance there's access on like, what, 


a need-to-know basis and -- and there are still 


-- information that's still restricted. The Q 


clearance isn't automatic access to all -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- the classified information, and 


there are situations where, if I recall 


correctly, that NIOSH staff is not allowed 


access to the --


 MR. ELLIOTT: No, that's not true. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- information. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We -- the need-to-know has been 


established and it's covered in the memorandum 


of understanding between HHS and DOE. To date, 


our experience in getting staff and contractor 


staff clearances depends on an individual set 


of circumstances for each case. It runs from 


nine months to a year. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It can be expedited if you've had 


a previous clearance and, in some cases, that's 


still taken six months' time. 


I'd also note for you, though, that while we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

115 

have finished dose reconstructions for 12,000 


claims, not one of those have used classified 


information to arrive at a dose reconstruction 


for decision. But this -- this counsel that's 


been provided would also cover those cases or 


claims where we might have to use classified 


information to adjudicate a final decision. So 


I just want to make that point clear. It's not 


only SEC petitions that are at risk here, it's 


also perhaps a claim or two in the future. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I ask a question related to 


that point? I'm not -- I don't know the answer 


and it may be something Liz or Larry -- do your 


procedures currently -- your regulations 


currently address this -- that part of the 


issue, the individual claimants' access to this 


in-- this information? 'Cause if I recall, we 


set up a process and the law sets up a process, 


I think presuming that there is -- there is 


access, and -- and certainly that transparency 


was an important element of it, and does that 


require any change in your -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The law does -- the law does 


speak to the use of classified information. 


EEOICPA recognizes that there is a need for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

national security regarding certain types of 


information, and that we will end up facing 


that. Our processes, our rules, do not speak 


to how an individual claimant or a petitioner 


may be afforded access or may not be afforded 


access. We have sought guidance and counsel 


from our own general counsel and from the 


Department of Labor's general counsel, and the 


Department of Justice general counsel. We have 


been told that there are procedures that are 


employed by the Department of Justice to 


address how and whether or not access can be 


given. And you know, I -- to date we've not 


had to gain experience in any of those 


procedures so I can't speak to how cumbersome 


or how difficult or how successful they may in 


fact be. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: And just for -- for information on 


the table, SC&A also has Q-cleared people that 


are available to the Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Further comments? Michael. 


 MR. GIBSON: Based on this, just to throw this 


out for a thought for the Board, should we 


draft a letter to Congress and indicate to them 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

117 

that due to this latest information, it may 


preclude us from fulfilling our obligations 


fully? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not sure who the question is 


addressed to, maybe to ourselves. I suspect 


that if we wanted to raise that issue, we would 


probably want to do it through the Secretary as 


a concern, either asking the Secretary to do 


something on our behalf or take the route of 


requesting that Board members be granted Q 


clearance. Lew, do you --


 DR. WADE: No, I agree. I mean I think that's 


the normal way to proceed. It -- it's really 


up to you, but... 


 MR. GIBSON: Based on the fact we already have 


the opinion of HHS, could I make a motion that 


we draft a letter to the members of Congress 


and inform them that, based on this 


information, it's -- may preclude us from 


fulfilling our obligation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Your motion is that we draft a 


letter to Congress? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is there a second to the 

motion? 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118

 (No responses) 


Is there a second? No second? 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, I'm just asking a procedural 


question 'cause I thought either Lew or Paul 


indicated it would be a letter -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I was suggesting that -- 

 DR. MELIUS: -- to the Secretary. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I -- I thought any such letter 

would go through the Secretary. But that does 


not bind the Board. If the Board wishes to 


directly correspond with Congress, I think we 


can make such an action. We do correspond with 


Congressional people on a regular basis. It's 


getting more and more regular, it seems. 


 DR. WADE: I do think this is an advisory board 


to the Secretary. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm not hearing a second yet. I'm 


not sure if that's discomfort with -- 


 DR. MELIUS: It's -- well, personally it's I'm 


not sure the best way is to go to Congress. 


certainly would propose that we communicate 


with the Secretary -- two-fold, reiterate our 


request for the written opinion from Department 


of Justice 'cause I think -- I'd like to 


understand the rationale and sort of -- better 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

understanding how we may -- how we 


operationalize this very general sort of 


statement from -- from them that's, you know -- 


at least how HHS interprets something verbally 


said by some verbal ruling from the Department 


of Justice, and I just find it... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me make a suggestion, just to 


move us forward on this issue. I'm going to 


suggest, Michael, that you and Jim get together 


and draft a proposed motion for the Board for 


us to act on tomorrow on this issue. I think 


we understand the intent is to elevate this 


item and make the consequences known. Perhaps 


you and Jim could -- is it -- if that's 


agreeable -- could prepare a written motion for 


us to act on at our work session tomorrow. 


Would that be agreeable? 


 DR. MELIUS: That'd be fine. And it should --


should that motion suggest a letter, we'll 


draft a letter, also. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would be fine. 


 DR. MELIUS: That way I think will 


facilitate... 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would facilitate. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, good. 

120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll proceed on that basis, 


then we don't have to wordsmith something right 


here. 


BOARD CORRESPONDENCE RESPONSE TO LETTERS FROM
 

SEN. CLINTON, SEN. SCHUMER, REP. HIGGINS, REP.
 

SLAUGHTER, AND MIKE WRIGHT, STEEL WORKERS
 

(PRESENTATION BY NIOSH/ORAU ON WORKER INTERACTIONS)
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

Well, speaking of Congressional correspondence, 


you have in your notebook several letters. And 


under the Board rules, the Chair has drafted 


some responses. I'd like to begin with the 


letter from Senator Clinton, which -- a letter 


was dated November 7th dealing with Bethlehem 


Steel. A proposed response was drafted and 


distributed to the Board earlier this month by 


e-mail. Copies of it are on the table. The e-


mail transmission dropped the -- big word 


"draft" should be on this. This is not a final 


letter, it's a draft. It's not been sent. The 


draft is dated January 19th. It's in your 


notebook. 


This is the proposed response to Senator 


Clinton's letter. I would like to point out 


that I also sent a draft of this to Stu 


Hinnefeld at NIOSH and asked him to provide me 


with updated figures on the Bethlehem Steel 


site as far as -- because the draft letter to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

121 

Senator Clinton used the -- I think it was the 


November data from the site, so I did ask for 


that update, and somewhere I have that 


information. Now it's not in the draft copy 


that you have. I have a -- it'll just take me 


a moment here to make files out of it. 


I'm going to ask for a motion to accept or to 


transmit my proposed letter, with the following 


changes. In paragraph two where it says 


"Department of Labor has referred 678 cases", 


that number now is 692, from Bethlehem Steel 


for dose reconstruction. Dose reconstructions 


have been completed on 578 cases -- and you'll 


notice that number has dropped from the 


original value of 580, and that's because a 


couple of cases apparently got referred back or 


something like that, so the correct number now 


is 578, and that is -- instead of 85 percent, 


it's 83 percent of the total cases, so make 


that change. The last sentence in that second 


paragraph should now say three cases have been 


withdrawn by DOL, leaving 111 cases at NIOSH 


awaiting dose reconstruction. 


 The next paragraph would say of the 578, 255 -- 


that number remains the same -- appear to have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

122 

a probability of causation of 50 percent or 


greater, and 323 will have a probability of 


causation less than 50 percent. According to 


Department of Labor, compensation paid to 


Bethlehem Steel workers as of January 19th, 


2006 was $38,250,000, with an additional 


$194,139 in medical bills paid. 


So those are the updated figures, and then the 


rest of the letter would remain the same. I'd 


like to ask for a motion to transmit this 


letter. 


 DR. WADE: Just a minute. You are -- we are 


also in receipt, about the same time frame, 


from -- letters from Congresswoman Slaughter 


and Congressman Higgins -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and those were -- 


 DR. WADE: -- and you were --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- those are separate letters, 


yeah, and we'll handle them individually since 


the letters are different. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'd make a motion we accept this 


letter to be sent. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second? 


 MS. MUNN: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I'd call for any modifications 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

123 

that anyone wishes to make or suggest -- Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. The draft that's in front 


of me, it's the last paragraph on the first 


page, (reading) In light of the actions already 


taken by the Board... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I object to this way this 


paragraph is written. I understand the 


rationale, but it seems to me that Senator 


Clinton's letter makes the assumption that the 


Board generates a Special Exposure Cohort, and 


then we sort of say well, we're not planning on 


doing that. Well, we can't do it. It's not --


you know, we act on NIOSH's rec-- 


recommendations. NIOSH either, because they 


can't complete dose reconstructions in some 


cases, are forwarding SEC to us, or you know, 


the more common case so far has been with, you 


know, petition and people petition us to do 


that. So I mean I think we need to, you know, 


address that directly and say it's not -- you 


know, not our task. We're not in a position to 


-- you know, we have not been asked to consider 


an SEC petition there. And I'm a little 


concerned about -- I think we can say that a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

number have been done, but we're in this very 


awkward position. We review individual dose 


reconstructions. We have I believe reviewed 


some from Bethlehem. But we may have -- I 


can't remember if we deferred them or what the 


action was, but -- but it's only a small 


number. We have a site profile that we've 


reviewed and what -- you know, the -- you know, 


it's still in process. I mean NIOSH is 


revising the site profile. And there's sort of 


a lot of -- there's sort of a lot of process, 


things that have been done but haven't been 


finalized here. So I think we need to be 


careful in reaching conclusions about something 


we're not in a position to reach conclusions 


about because procedurally we haven't done it. 


I mean I understand what you're trying to say 


there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, actually I thought I was 


trying to say just that and perhaps didn't say 


it well. Number one, the action already taken 


is referring to the paragraph where we gave an 


opinion. It's quoted. 


 DR. MELIUS: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's the action, that -- that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

125 

the site profile is adequate for dose 


reconstruction. That's a key point, I thought. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number two, that there is no 


petition. I mean the last paragraph says there 


is no qualified petition on which the Board 


could act. Maybe if you feel that Senator 


Clinton doesn't understand the process, I'd -- 


we can certainly expand that. I was simply 


pointing out, in essence, that the Board cannot 


do anything -- we cannot act, there's -- for 


SEC, there's no petition before us to act on. 


 DR. MELIUS: I would --

 DR. ZIEMER: So help us say it better. 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would bring that to the 

front of the paragraph 'cause what I'm 


concerned about, there are no plans by the 


Board to recommend a special exposure cohort -- 


I mean where we don't plan unless we're asked 


to review. That -- that -- that's what -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I gotcha, okay. So suppose we 


start the paragraph with -- we drop the word 


"furthermore" and say "At the present time 


there's no qualified Bethlehem Steel exposure 


cohort on which to act." 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

126

 DR. MELIUS: Right, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then what? In light of actions 


already taken and because the -- and then just 


drop the thing -- no plans for the Board to 


recommend -- since we don't do that, that's the 


point that you are making, I guess. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


MR. ESPINOSA: Drop that whole sentence? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think the suggestion is that we 


drop it, starting with -- let's see -- well, 


I'm not sure -- we can't just drop that phrase, 


though. 


 DR. MELIUS: I think our official position is 


better said in the paragraph (unintelligible), 


the one that starts "On January 9th". I mean 


we've stated that we voted on that and we -- I 


think we really have sort of formally done what 


is says here. And because NIOSH -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I --

 DR. MELIUS: -- has demonstrated... 

 DR. ZIEMER: When the Board instructed me on 

January 9th, the instruction was to deal with 


her request for -- that we act on -- or declare 


an SEC petition, so we do need to say that at 


the present time there's no qualified -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

127

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I think -- I think that -- 


and I would --


 DR. ZIEMER: And then just end at that point. 

 DR. MELIUS: I think just end at that point. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Is everybody comfortable with 

that? 

 MR. GRIFFON: What -- what's happening with 

that whole sentence before, in -- "In light 


of", I think that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: That would disappear. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Then I'm -- then I'm satisfied. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I certainly consider that 


friendly. It's within the idea -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, did you have a comment or 


suggestion? I found no dangling participles. 


 MS. MUNN: I'll be cautious about that. Do I 


understand correctly that you're proposing to 


eliminate the entire first sentence of the last 


paragraph? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it's the second to last 


paragraph and it would simply say "At the 


present time there's no -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

128

 DR. ZIEMER: -- "qualified Bethlehem Steel SEC 


petition on which the Board can act." 


 MS. MUNN: If our purpose is to help instruct 


the Senator in process here, then would it not 


be wise to say "At the present time there is no 


Bethlehem Steel Special Exposure Cohort 


petition that has been qualified by the federal 


agencies and on which the Board could act." 


Would that not be clearer? Or would it simply 


muddy the waters further for staff? You know 


staff better than I, Dr. Melius. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I can add that (unintelligible) 


simply -- it might imply that there was a 


petition but it didn't qualify. I don't think 


there's been any petition. Any other 


suggestions? 


 (No responses) 


Then with that change, let me ask for a vote on 


this draft. 


All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Opposed? 


 (No responses) 


The motion carries and we will transmit that 


letter. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

Then we have a memo -- let me take the Schumer 


letter next. This also deals with Bethlehem 


Steel. Oh, incidentally, this letter would be 


accompanied by the matrix that I referred to in 


the letter. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, attached, you said. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it would be attached. We 


don't have that here as part of it, but... 


 Now the Schumer letter that's in your file is 


not the one to which I was responding. 


 DR. WADE: There are two. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, there's two, okay. 


 DR. WADE: And November 14th is the one to 


which you were responding. 


 DR. ZIEMER: November 14th, and then -- I'm 


looking for my response, here it is. 


 DR. WADE: Your response. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, here's the response, and 


there is a similar paragraph in the Schumer 


letter similar to the Clinton letter that -- in 


fact, I believe it's identical. But let me ask 


for a motion to transmit this letter, and then 


we can take care of it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: So moved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Second? Moved by Presley, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

seconded by --


 DR. DEHART: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- DeHart. Does the Board wish me 


to modify that second to last paragraph in the 


same manner as the Clinton letter? 


 DR. MELIUS: In a very friendly way, we would 


ask you to do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other -- any other amendments 


or modifications? 


 (No responses) 


 If not -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is there -- is there any update 


on -- on Linde in here? I'm just reading this 


quickly now, but the -- the letter was asking 


about Linde Ceramics workers as well as 


Bethlehem Steel. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, he was thanking us for our 


action on Linde. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, okay, okay -- right. I'm 


just refreshing myself, sorry -- before I vote. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, all in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Opposed? 


 (No responses) 


The motion carries. Now we have --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131

 DR. WADE: The second Schumer letter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the second Schumer letter, 


which is dated --


 DR. WADE: Coincidentally, January 19th. This 


is new to the Board, there's a second Schumer 


letter dated January 19th that has recently 


come to Dr. Ziemer. It has an attachment, a 


two-page document that has Eddie Walker's name 


at the bottom of it. That should be in your 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's two pages? 


 DR. WADE: Right, so you've got this letter 


from Schumer dated the 19th, and then a two-


page one from Eddie Walker that leads with 


"Dear Mr. Elliott". 


 DR. ZIEMER: What is the date of the Ed Walker 


-- is that the same one we got 


(unintelligible)? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I believe it is. 


 DR. MELIUS: My recollection is when we 


considered Bethlehem on the January 9th call 


that we discussed dealing with Mr. Walker's 


concerns and that we -- that our action there, 


in terms of instructions to NIOSH on resolving 


and changing the site profile, presumed that, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

should there be further correspondence or 


issues raised by Mr. Walker, that NIOSH would 


address those in, you know, an on-- sort of an 


ongoing manner in terms of, you know, similar 


they'd addressed to other issues raised for 


other site profiles, you know, and for 


claimants and would take those into account in 


an appropriate fashion. Is that -- am -- I'm ­

- probably asking -- I thought that was my 


recollection 'cause we talked about sort of how 


to address Mr. Walker's concerns. And not all 


of them were addressed in -- in our 


instructions in terms of the site profile and 


the issues we were trying to resolve. And --


and I would suggest that we write back to 


Senator Schumer something to that effect, that 


it's our understanding that -- and that NIOSH's 


actions, you know, in -- revised site profile 


at some point is going to come back to the 


Board. NIOSH is going to provide us quarterly 


reports, et cetera. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: That is correct, as I recall, as 


well. And we have been responding to the 


numerous letters that Mr. Walker has provided 


us. This recent letter, we'll again respond to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

the points that he raises, as we have, and we 


will post these on our web site, as we do, so ­

- and we intend fully to bring forward to the 


Board whatever we resolve in that matrix of I 


think six or seven items, so... 


 DR. WADE: Is Mr. Walker either in the room or 


on the telephone? 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's not in here at the meeting. 


 DR. WADE: And he's not on the telephone? 


Okay, I just want to make... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me suggest the following since 


I had not seen the letter -- these letters 


often, as this one did, don't come to me 


directly so there's a time lag. I had not seen 


the letter, but I -- the Board's policy is that 


-- that letters to Congressional people obtain 


Board approval. I'm going to suggest that I 


draft a letter along the lines of what was just 


described and distribute it to the Board by e-


mail and see if there's any major objections 


with the wording. If there is not, we'll just 


go ahead and transmit it. If there is, we'll 


delay sending it. Is that agreeable? 


 MS. MUNN: Please do, please. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any objection? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134

 (No responses) 


 Without objection, we'll do that. 


 DR. WADE: So just so it's understood, the 


procedure -- Paul will draft a letter, send it 


to you. If any Board member raises an 


objection, then we'll hold for the next 


meeting. If no Board member raises an 


objection, then Paul will be empowered to send 


the letter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It'll simply provide a response 


along the lines of what you described, Jim, 


that NIOSH is going to bring to us any changes 


in the site profile. 


 DR. MELIUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's asking here that we rescind 


the action we took on January 9th. And unless 


I hear action to that -- 


 DR. MELIUS: No, I -- 'cause --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm going to tell him that we 


are not rescinding that action. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. No, I -- and because our 


action took into account that further 


information may be raised and -- 


 DR. DEHART: (Off microphone) I don't 


understand what his concern was. I guess 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

(unintelligible) we didn't take action. 


 DR. MELIUS: And I think --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, we acted on that motion on 


January 9th, and I can point out to him that 


that motion did take into consideration the 


findings of SC&A. He implies here that we 


should rescind that because of SC&A's findings, 


and we took those into consideration. 


 DR. MELIUS: But our action didn't tell NIOSH 


not to -- to ignore any further -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- correspondence or --

 DR. ZIEMER: That's right. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- information that came in from 

Mr. Walker or anybody else, and -- and I think 


that's -- that's sort of the point. It's not 


like we've -- that's all that'll ever be 


considered are those six points, but rather 


than as new information becomes available it 


would be incorporated. 


 DR. DEHART: That was my recollection. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. No, I'm -- 'cause I asked 


the question specifically. I was trying to 


understand the -- that, because Mr. Walker with 


-- some of the information was not sent in a -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

you know, in a -- at least in a timely way that 


could be addressed by our resolution process 


and -- and so forth. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Now there was 


another --


 DR. WADE: Two other Congressional -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- series of letters. 


 DR. WADE: These are letters from Congresswoman 


Slaughter and Congressman Higgins. My 


recollection was that -- it was a feeling that 


the Clinton letter would suffice in response, 


but you need to make that determination. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The Louise Slaughter letter -- 


wasn't this a statement to the Board at the 


time of our meeting, as opposed -- this was not 


a letter to me. Wasn't this a public statement 


made by her -- by her staffer? 


 DR. WADE: It's possible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: My recollection is that this -- 


this Slaughter statement was read into the 


record already and -- well, it's just part of 


the deliberations, as was the Higgins -- these 


are just written copies of what was read into 


the record, so the Board officially received 


those. I don't think any action is necessary 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

137 

on those. 


 DR. WADE: That's fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There was one additional letter 


that asked for certain information, and -- and 


the Board has been copied on this. I'm -- I 


don't see it in our booklet -- 


 DR. WADE: Who was it from, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: This was -- this was the -- 


actually we will get to it, it's a Hanford 


letter. 


 DR. WADE: Right, that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll cover that when we get to 


Hanford. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And the information was provided 


directly I think, Lew, by you or by NIOSH and 


we'll cover that at the appropriate time. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. WADE: The only other longstanding letter 


we have is a letter from Mike Wright with the 


steelworkers. We've arranged for ORAU to brief 


the Board on its efforts with regard to 


collecting and taking into account worker 


information. We could have that briefing now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

138 

or we could have it after lunch, as you 


would... 


 DR. ZIEMER: How long does that briefing take? 


 MS. KIMPAN: I intend to be very brief, 


depending on the questions and comments the 


folks may have. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we go ahead and do it, 


we have about 15 minutes, don't we? Yes, let's 


proceed. 


 DR. WADE: Right, the only thing I would ask -- 


please, proceed, come to the microphone. I'd 


like to hold to the 1:30 time slot for the 


beginning of the Rocky Flats discussions again 


'cause we'll have folks from Colorado on the 


phone, but I think we're -- that's well within 


our -- our ability to do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so we'll proceed with this ­

-

 MS. KIMPAN: (Unintelligible) Hello, thank you 

Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Wade, members of the Board. 


I'm Kate Kimpan, the project director for the 


ORAU team for this effort. It's a pleasure to 


be here today and share with you some of what 


we're doing in both response to Mr. Wright's 


letter to the Board and others last June, but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

139 

also in response to the growing need that we as 


a team have felt and that our colleagues at 


NIOSH have felt and instructed us to deal with. 


And that is we, as a part of this entire 


process, get a great deal of input from a 


number of interested parties around the 


country. In particular we conduct worker 


outreach meetings where we try to assure that 


workers who are represented have 


representatives there to share with us 


important information that they may have. 


 In Mr. Wright's letter in June he raises 


concerns about how we're dealing with the 


information that we gather, what we've done 


with it, and what our response is. And I 


wanted to start by saying I know you're 


familiar with some of the activities that have 


gone on, but our team has developed, working 


closely with OCAS, a database to capture these 


comments. The name of that database, in our 


world of acronyms, is the WISPR database, which 


is the Worker Input to Site Profile Revisions. 


This database has the capacity both to capture 


comments that were made, but as importantly, 


after those comments are captured, to assure 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

that the commenter and public understand what 


our team's response was to those comments. 


I will say that in everything that we've done 


up until now -- I've been on board since 


November, so when I say everything, it might be 


a more limited everything. In the work that 


was done prior to that, and we're continuing, 


we at these meetings, where we're there 


intentionally to gather input from workers, 


always have the team leader for the site 


profile document there. There's also always a 


representative from NIOSH in the room. So I --


I want to assure you that every comment that we 


get is extremely important. But I don't want 


you to think that we go into these meetings and 


might walk away with some extremely important 


comment with a delayed action upon it. We're 


endeavoring to make very clear to folks that 


have commented what we've done. And in several 


instances, about a dozen or so, we have 


communicated back with the representatives of 


organized labor that were as part of the 


meeting to assure them that they know what -- 


how their input is valued and what it's done. 


 You've heard many, many discussions through the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

141 

many meetings as to the different processes and 


procedures that have emerged. And those of you 


that have been watching this closely realize 


many of the things that we're doing, including 


everything from revisions in documents to 


development of the database to revisions in the 


conflict of interest policy, are issues that 


were first raised in these arenas. So I think 


our project's responsiveness to this comment -- 


these -- these comments and concerns has been 


empirical and it's been boisterous. A place 


where we have absolute room to improve is to 


coordinate how we assure that folks that have 


made comments in these meetings, folks who did 


not wish to remain anonymous, understand what 


we've done in response to those comments. 


We have a procedure developed now that's -- 


it's -- it's one of the ORAU procedures that 


oversee how we deal with these comments. We're 


endeavoring to comply immediately with those 


procedures. We've right now entered into our 


database, which has the capacity, as I said, to 


both have the comment and to have our response 


to it showing, the comments from -- more than 


600 comments from eight of the largest meetings 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

142 

at the largest facilities. As I say, we're 


going to -- we intend to work very closely with 


OCAS in coming days and weeks as we continue to 


ramp this up to assure that the concerns that 


Mr. Wright outlines and that others may have -- 


are you hearing us; when you hear us, what do 


you do with it -- we need to assure people that 


yes, we're hearing you. We're listening. We 


have found interesting and essential 


information. You hear them in these meetings, 


people will identify records, identify 


processes that only those -- those folks who 


were in those facilities really know, so 


they're incredibly valuable. And a place where 


I think we have great room to improve is to 


assure that workers, their families and their 


representatives understand what that value is. 


More importantly, empirically understand how 


we've dealt with each one of the comments. If 


it's a comment that's important and already 


assimilated, it doesn't mean we shouldn't 


respond; it means we need to let those folks 


know thank you for your comment, here's what 


our action is and response. 


It's not thoroughly developed exactly how we'll 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

communicate with everyone because these arenas 


are quite broad. Obviously if it's a group of 


steelworkers that were part of the meeting, 


communicating back with that local is a very 


effective way to assure that folks know what's 


occurred. If it's an area of workers that were 


represented by others, or not represented at 


all, it creates more challenges for us, and 


we're endeavoring to determine what the best 


way is to assure people that they're being 


heard. 


Putting things on the web is a great way for 


some. I've heard concerns in my -- my sidebars 


through this meeting that of course there are 


many, many of these workers who might come make 


a comment that aren't likely to be able to look 


on the internet for the response. So we're 


going to work closely with OCAS to determine 


how best to assure that the word is getting out 


to the people in a productive way so they 


understand how essential their input and 


contribution to these documents and programs 


are. As you know, all the many, many, many 


documents that we've worked through this system 


thus far, none of them would have made it to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

where they are without the essential input from 


those folks who are working in those 


facilities, alerted us to processes, problems, 


records and occurrences. It's an absolutely 


inherent part of us doing our job well. We 


have room to improve on assuring that workers 


and their representatives and their families 


understand that we're hearing them and what 


they're doing, and I'd welcome any questions or 


comments or suggestions that you all have to 


assure we're doing this well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Kate, could you identify for the 


record -- if you have it at your fingertips -- 


 MS. KIMPAN: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the ORAU procedure number -- 

 MS. KIMPAN: I do, and it's ORAU Procedure 

0097, Revision 00. It's titled "Conduct of the 


Worker Outreach Program", and it was approved 


on December 29th of this past year. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And I want to 


determine or ask John Mauro, do you know, John, 


if that procedure's on our list -- updated list 


of procedures to review? 


DR. MAURO: I do not --


 DR. ZIEMER: It may be too new to -- but we --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

DR. MAURO: -- (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- want to make sure --


DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


list that. 


 MS. KIMPAN: Does yours -- pardon me. Dr. 


Ziemer, does your list include Procedure 0031, 


Technical Basis Document Development Review and 


Approval, which was also updated 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Kathy has the list here and just 


is checking it. We don't need to know that 


right now. I'm basically saying we want to 


make sure that -- that we have a look at what's 


being done. 


 The other question I'm going to ask -- you 


know, when we have our public comment periods 


here, and all of that information is captured 


of course in the transcripts, we have always 


sort of assumed that the appropriate people 


will pick up the information. If it's a 


Department of Labor issue, that their reps will 


follow it. If it's a NIOSH issue, that NIOSH 


will follow it and so on. But I'm wondering if 


anyone has thought about capturing -- do you 


folks capture the appropriate remarks from our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

transcripts to enter into the comment database? 


 MS. KIMPAN: The reason I looked at Larry is 


there was much that had gone before. I -- I 


have to say I don't know whether there's a 


formal review of transcripts. I know that 


after each meeting the government 


representatives and the ORAU team 


representatives certainly, with their own notes 


and experiences, when something emerges here 


you sort of see us all huddle, so there's an 


immediate exchange of information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right, I'm sort of getting 


at -- and the Board doesn't really have a -- in 


place a formal procedure to track what occurs, 


but we are aware that there's a wealth of 


information --


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that also emerges from the 


public comment periods, and we don't want to 


lose that. So that perhaps we can -- if the 


Board agrees with this, would -- and if NIOSH 


doesn't object, to at least have some means of 


sort of checking that -- 


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- maybe looking at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

transcripts and make sure that the appropriate 


items have been captured, if -- if needed. 


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely, and I believe -- 


absolutely. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, you caught me --


 MS. KIMPAN: Sorry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- not sleeping, but thinking 


about something else, so -- but yes, I think 


before Kate's arrival -- you know, Dr. Toohey 


always attended these meetings or had some 


other ORAU person attend. There were folks at 


ORAU who perused the transcripts and captured 


in what was called a Top Hat database, which 


was an ATSDR software package that was totally 


unusable by everybody else in the world and we 


couldn't give SC&A access to it, actually. We 


got that converted over now to this WISPR 


database, and I think -- I think there's still 


resident now in that, there's still some 


comments that were collected -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- from Board meetings through 


the transcript mechanism. 


I would just offer this, that -- you know, you 


saw me jump up a couple of times last night -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and I pull people out in the 


hallway and we talk to them and we try to get 


down to the bottom of the facts -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we know that there's follow-up 


occurring. I'm really asking about -- 'cause 


you're really formalizing the process so 


something doesn't fall through the cracks. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Right, and we want to make sure 


that where there is essential information 


that's relevant to doing dose reconstructions, 


that has impact on dose reconstructions, we 


capture that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and we -- we tell people how 


we're utilizing that information. But at the 


same time I'll say this to you, Paul, that a 


lot of what we hear, in the end is not truly 


relevant --


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- and needs to be couched in a 


site profile. It may be couched elsewhere in a 


Technical Basis Document, it may be couched 


elsewhere in a Technical Information Bulletin, 


and we're -- and Kate's rightfully commented on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

where we stand to make some very I think 


considerable improvement is in those areas 


where things that we hear that we don't -- you 


know, we just don't believe they're going to, 


you know, make any difference at the end of the 


day, we need to get back to those people and 


explain why. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah. So --


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I just ask a follow-up on -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that? In the WISPR database, 


do we have access to that? I haven't seen it. 


I just don't know if SC&A has -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I don't think you do yet, but I 


think the plans -- that work is underway to 


give you access, to give SC&A access. I don't 


think they've actually got into it yet, but 


that's --


 MS. KIMPAN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- our intent. 


 MS. KIMPAN: -- (unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: Does that include --


 MS. KIMPAN: -- (unintelligible) --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you mentioned in your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

presentation 600 comments or so -- 


 MS. KIMPAN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- from these worker outreach -- 


 MS. KIMPAN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- meetings, so those are rolled 


into the same database? 


 MS. KIMPAN: They are. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And maybe to -- maybe to help 


Kate out a little bit, you know, comments come 


in a variety of mechanisms. Some comments are 


-- we prefer written comments. And our policy 


is written comments are replied to in writing, 


and so that -- you know, if a person goes to 


the trouble to put pen to paper, we feel that 


we owe them the courtesy of responding in 


writing, as well. And that's -- that's pretty 


well established. 


We get comments in worker outreach meetings 


that are verbal. We capture those in the 


minutes. The minutes do go up on our web site. 


What we need to do a better job of, as we noted 


here before, is getting back to those folks and 


letting them know hey, here's how we treated 


it. You may not have seen it, you know, on the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

151 

web site or you may not know that it got caught 


in this information bulletin, or you know, we 


appreciate your thoughts and your comments, but 


you know, for dose reconstruction purposes, you 


know, there's no real relevance there and this 


is why. 


We get comments of course from this Board 


meeting. We also get comments as we travel 


around in town hall meetings that are separate 


from the outreach effort. A year -- two 


summers ago we put on workshops for dose 


reconstruction and how we go about doing that, 


and we had -- and we invited union stewards, 


safety reps from organized labor, advocates for 


groups of people at different sites where there 


wasn't organized labor existing. We pulled 


those people in. We're going to do that again 


this summer, as well. I just want to get that 


on the record and so that we can, you know, 


have people start thinking about if they want ­

- they have an interest in attending those 


workshops. That's another source we get input. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can I just --


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Thank you. Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- have a question on the WISPR 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

database, is it -- does that have comment and 


resolution? 


 MS. KIMPAN: It does. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) I think that 


would be important (unintelligible). 


 MS. KIMPAN: (Off microphone) It has what's 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: So you're really tracking each 

item --

 MS. KIMPAN: It does, and that was part of -- 

the other limit on Top Hat was it was a capture 


without, you know, the live part of what did 


you do. You need to know that every one of 


those comments has been in my shop triaged to 


the proper manager for resolution. So we're 


dealing very promptly, and our policy has been 


-- although, as Larry points out, we have room 


to improve how people understand that -- always 


has been immediately following those meetings ­

- after the minutes are approved, because the 


minutes must be approved by the participants -- 


those meetings are thoroughly -- those -- those 


minutes are thoroughly scoured, the issues are 


pulled out and given to the proper manager and 


the responses come back. And you see the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

153 

response emerging in -- in, you know, things as 


broad as some of the -- the way that we're 


doing our overall work, but we didn't say to 


that commenter you're why we developed a 


coworker ritual. But it's because of what 


we've learned at these meetings, as you know, 


that many of our OTIBs and many of the other 


procedures and processes are put in place, 


because of what we've learned. This database 


does allow for resolution. And as a matter of 


fact, it's essential that you have a resolution 


before you can close out an item. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Just to collect some items from the 


long discussion we've just had, I'll take it 


upon myself to see that the SC&A task to review 


procedures is modified to include 0097 Rev. 00. 


 MS. KIMPAN: And Dr. Wade, also would you add 


to that the Revised Proc. 0031, which is the 


Technical Basis Development document, which has 


been revised to accommodate these other 


changes? It's part of our formal TBD process 


now. 


 DR. WADE: I'll do that. I'll ask that every 


effort is made to make the WISPR database 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

154 

available to the Board and SC&A and that we e-


mail the Board when that availability has been 


granted. And then I would ask that -- that the 


minutes (sic) from these meetings, starting 


with this meeting, be reviewed thoroughly and, 


as appropriate, entry into the WISPR database 


be made of comments that are taken here. 


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I would -- I would also say it 


might be useful, after we get the WISPR 


database, to have another forum where we can 


talk to the worker outreach (unintelligible) -- 


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely, we welcome input on 


how to --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) it would be 


useful to look through comments and resolution 


first before we pursue any (unintelligible). 


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: I have two questions. The first 

is that I believe a union representative last 


night had pointed out that he had submitted 


comments on one of the site profiles -- I 


believe he said two years ago, but maybe I 


picked up the dates wrong -- and he knew that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

they had been received, but there had been no 


response to that. And -- and --


 MS. KIMPAN: I might have been in a sidebar, do 


you -- who -- who was --


 DR. MELIUS: It was a public (unintelligible) ­

-

 MS. KIMPAN: No, no, I mean who was that? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, in fact, I asked him if he 

could confirm that he had transmitted the 


information, and he said he had confirmation of 


delivery or something. 


 DR. MELIUS: And I just was curious about a 


response to that. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It was Mr. Glenn Bell, and yes, 


we did receive the information. And I -- I 


don't know if Bill Tankersley can help me out 


here, but what he submitted to us were maps of 


the site and other information. And 


rightfully, ORAU takes information that's given 


to it and makes sure it goes through a 


classification officer because some of this 


information, while it may be so marked as non-


confidential, before we put it up on our web 


site, we need to make sure that we're not going 


to put something up that's (unintelligible) -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, especially site plans 


nowadays are very --


 MR. ELLIOTT: And I believe that's where it's 


at --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- a concern. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- it's still being --


classification review, I think. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) specifically about those 


documents (unintelligible). 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And I hope I'm not stepping out 


of bounds here, but I think the reason why is 


there's some building names and numbers on 


there and we have to be careful about that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, but I guess one of -- my 


point is -- one, is that -- first of all, this 


has taken I believe two years, if we've -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I've talked to him. I've talked 


to him and I've sent e-mails back to him -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay, okay, that --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- so you know, it's -- I think 


he's frustrated in the fact that we can't seem 


to shake it loose. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. But I mean I think it also 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

157 

addresses our earlier issue about classified 


information, so I mean this -- see it in 


another example, one of the frustrations 


involved and -- and potential problems in 


dealing with that and it's not always 


straightforward. 


My second question is that in terms of 


scheduling these meetings and so forth, is it a 


policy that when there's any significant 


revision to a site profile that there is a 


meeting held to get input and, you know, review 


of that significant revision with the people at 


the site? I mean... 


 MS. KIMPAN: It certainly has been the case 


that at sites where we get a great deal of 


comment there's a great deal of revision. We 


often have visited that site multiple times. 


apologize, I don't know if -- if there's a 


formal proc-- I think there is not a formal 


procedure that says if there's any change, we 


will conduct another meeting. At the time, as 


you know, that the outreach meetings were 


growing in the form that they were in, it was a 


-- it was a slightly less broad agenda. Now 


obviously we're very interested in input for 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158 

everything from dose reconstructions -- well 


beyond just those documents, so I don't think 


we always conduct another meeting after there's 


been a change. 


We do communicate in writing, and I have 30, 40 


examples in my packet, with the representatives 


of organized labor. For instance, the 


steelworker meetings, we always send things 


back to those locals when there's been a change 


because of their comments. 


 DR. MELIUS: I mean I -- 'cause I would suggest 


that that become part of your policy/procedure, 


do that. Now again, if there's a revision 


underway and you're -- you address that at a 


meeting, that's -- another meeting, that's 


fine. 


 MS. KIMPAN: Sure. 


 DR. MELIUS: I don't think it has to be done 


necessarily twice or whatever. But -- but 


certainly as part of that process at some 


point, what one -- I -- I think that would be 


good because -- I mean, you know, this has been 


late in coming about. It's taken a lot of 


effort and a lot of urging on the part of the 


Board to get this process in place. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

159

 Secondly, there's an awful lot of frustration 


out there because these site profiles have been 


in place. They're being used for literally 


thousands of dose reconstructions without an 


opportunity for meaningful input until 


relatively recently. And I think the more that 


the -- well, you may disagree with me, Larry, 


but that's the -- certainly the -- my feeling 


and the belief of a lot of other people out at 


the -- at these sites, and -- and a sense that 


you don't take people's comments into account, 


or to a very small extent. And I think to 


address that I think you really need to beef up 


and formalize the process for when you will do 


that so at least people will have reassurances 


that significant changes will not be made 


without the opportunity for input. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me just say that -- I'm 


sorry. Yes, we do go back and we attend to any 


requests for a revisit, and we've documented 


that effort. And again, this is what we've 


been saying all along here. We do have room 


for improvement on getting back to folks and 


telling them where their comments stand. 


 MS. KIMPAN: And Dr. Melius, I assure you those 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

160 

comments are taken extremely seriously. 
I 


think we have absolute room to improve on how 


we assure people that's the case. But I want 


you to know that, as science teams, both OCAS 


and ORAU take extremely seriously these 


comments. And I really do have a lengthy list, 


although we're short on time, of the many, 


many, many changes in our actual operations for 


those thousands of dose reconstructions that 


have been in response -- direct response to 


these comments. The fact that you bring up 


that you don't -- you weren't aware of that, 


and importantly, the folks making the comments 


might not be, shows us where we have vast room 


for improvement. But I assure you we're taking 


those comments extremely seriously as a 


program. And if someone raises an issue at 


those meetings that has immediate impact, both 


OCAS and the team leader are in that room in 


real time, and they don't wait until something 


else to incorporate that important information. 


And it's why you see things like some of the 


TIBs that we've developed, some of the OTIBs 


and some of the other processes that we've 


developed are in direct response to this input 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161 

that we've received. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mark has a comment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just a follow-up to what you just 


said. You said you had a list of these -- and 


even if it's in draft form, I think that'd be 


useful, and if you have a pri-- if you can get 


a print-out of it for the Board -- 


 MS. KIMPAN: Of? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and for the public. You just 


said you had a list of examples of where you 


had comments that -- that resulted in changes. 


 MS. KIMPAN: I -- I do indeed have a list, but 


it's sort of my scrawled, bulleted what-we'vedones. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, it's not --


 MS. KIMPAN: I'd be glad to formalize a -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think maybe --


 MS. KIMPAN: Yes, absolutely --


 DR. ZIEMER: Maybe in the future that would be 


something to share, yeah. 


 MS. KIMPAN: Absolutely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Especially if we're still going 


to be waiting for the WISPR database. I mean I 


think that will all be in the WISPR database, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

so if we have access to that, that might... 


 MS. KIMPAN: Yeah, WISPR went into production ­

- full production on the 15th of January, so 


it's relatively recent, and I know we're 


endeavoring to ensure that y'all have access. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Kate, thank you very much 


for that presentation, and we're encouraged by 


the direction that things are going with the 


new database, and we'll look forward to updates 


as we proceed. Thank you. 


 MS. KIMPAN: Thank you very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to break for lunch. 


We need to be back promptly at 1:30 to discuss 


the Rocky Flats site profile. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 12:10 p.m. 


to 1:35 p.m.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to call the meeting back 


to order, please. 


Before we begin our regular agenda items, I 


just want to mention to the Board and to those 


assembled here, relative to the United 


Steelworkers letter that was being discussed in 


terms of the capturing of information from 


workers and so on that we discussed just before 


the break, I will send a formal reply to that 

163 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

letter. When we originally got it last summer, 


it didn't appear that it needed a reply, it was 


simply some information. And it closed with 


please contact us if you have questions, was 


the way it ended. But I will reply to it and 


summarize what is being done in a formal way by 


the contractor to track the comments of workers 


and then follow up on them, so I just wanted to 


let you know that I will reply to that letter, 


which is the Michael Wright letter. 


ROCKY FLATS SITE PROFILE – DISCUSSION/
 

PLAN OF ACTION
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR


 Now we're ready to begin our discussion of the 


Rocky Flats site profile. I want to find out 


whether anyone from the Rocky Flats or from -- 


from the site is -- is on the telephone line. 


Do we have anyone remote from -- from Colorado? 


MR. DEMAIORI: Tony DeMaiori with the United 


Steelworkers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Let me ask you to 


repeat the name for our court reporter again. 


MR. DEMAIORI: Tony DeMaiori. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You may want to spell that for 


him. 


MR. DEMAIORI: D-e-Capital M-a-i-o-r-i. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Is there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

164 

anyone else from your group there? 


 MR. HILLER: We also have staff of the Colorado 


Congressional delegation. I'm David Hiller 


from Senator Salazar's office. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Anyone else? 


 MS. ALBERG: Jeanette Alberg with Senator 


Allard's office. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Welcome. 


 MS. BOLLER: Carolyn Boller from Congressman 


Udall's office. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MS. WARDER: Amy Warder with Congressman 

Beauprez. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Very good, thank you very much. 

 DR. WADE: Now we will be discussing a matrix. 


Do you have copies of the matrix? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: And please, if there's any -- if you 


have any questions in terms of your ability to 


hear, please raise them. We want you to be 


able to participate as fully as possible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now our -- our session this 


afternoon, for the Board members here, will be 


somewhat redundant in that for some of the 


Board members we had a presentation yesterday 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

dealing with Rocky Flats that was made to our 


subcommittee. And the Board's contractor, 


SC&A, which has done the site profile review 


and represented here by Joe Fitzgerald, did 


present some material to the Board yesterday, 


and we've asked Joe to basically present that 


same material, both to the full Board today and 


to those of you who are there by telephone. So 


I'm going to turn the mike over to Joe 


Fitzgerald, who is with SC&A, and he's going to 


review for us the materials from our contractor 


on the Rocky Flats plant and the issues that 


were raised on the site profile review. Joe 

Fitzgerald. 

 MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. This 

is Joe Fitzgerald. I led the Rocky Flats site 


profile review on behalf of SC&A, and good 


morning out in Colorado, good afternoon here. 


First off I just want to clarify one thing. 


Certainly we prepared the detailed matrix that 


you're looking at at this point. My 


presentation is essentially highlights of that 


matrix, focusing on issues that are significant 


from a dose reconstruction standpoint, or 


issues that would be perhaps challenges or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

166 

barriers to doing dose reconstruction. So 


again, we certainly did touch on, in the 


working group, all of the issues you're looking 


at. I believe there's 21 findings that were 


cited in the matrix. NIOSH in fact will 


mention it later. They have prepared a initial 


preliminary response to those specific issues 


and so certainly there's been a exchange on 


each and every item there, although we haven't 


had a chance to have a interchange discussion 


in a working group atmosphere. So this is, 


again, going to highlight what we think are the 


more significant issues that would be 


particularly important at this point in the 


process. 


I don't believe you have a copy of my 


presentation, so I'm going to also cover these 


-- these slides I'm presenting here on the 


screen and more or less repeat them for your 


sake, as well. 


 The Rocky Flats profile was conducted in the 


fall of last year, beginning actually in early 


August and -- with a report being submitted 


after classification review on December 8th. 


The Rocky Flats matrix, which you do have, is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

actually the prototype issue resolution matrix 


that we're using for the site profiles, and it 


basically highlights the findings that we're 


looking to have a further interchange with 


NIOSH on and -- and looking to resolve the 


questions, both technical and factual, as well 


as those that pertain to dose reconstruction. 


And that matrix itself was submitted on 


December 15th, so that's a relatively recent 


review. 


 The first primary issue I want to touch on is 


the use of urine bioassay MDA median values, 


which may not be appropriate for plutonium and 


americium. And the issue there is very -- very 


much the -- given the rather primitive internal 


bioassay techniques in the '50s and even into 


the early '60s, our concern on the site profile 


is that the -- the use of the median MDA values 


for plutonium and americium, and even for 


uranium but to a much lesser extent, we feel 


were unduly low, given the -- given the 


variables involved. And the variables 


themselves include the counting time, the 


theoretical upper bound detector counter 


efficiency, and a number of other parameters 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

which are cited in the report. But all of 


these contribute to what we think is a level of 


uncertainty that belies the estimation or the 


assumptions that are provided in the TBD at 


this point. And I think, again, it's a 


question of how much conservatism is really 


required to be claimant-favorable, particularly 


in that particular era of the 1950s. 


So what we would like to see certainly is -- 


and I believe this is what we heard yesterday ­

- is NIOSH perhaps revisit those parameters, 


look at some of the issues that we felt were 


questionable, were ones that perhaps could be 


tightened up, and to come together in terms of 


what would be perhaps more appropriately 


conservative MDAs. 


 And the implications of that particular issue, 


I think, are important from the standpoint 


that, you know, as you look at the history of ­

- of how doses were recorded -- internal doses 


were recorded at Rocky Flats, you know, 


certainly the workers on the other end of the 


phone can attest that in the earlier days yeah, 


that there were certainly practices where -- 


and policies where doses would be assigned. In 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

169 

this case certainly we understand that 


urinalysis (unintelligible) less than ten 


percent of the tolerance level, and the 


tolerance level were the -- the maximum 


allowable concentrations in urine -- activities 


in urine that would be permissible for workers 


at the site, and anything less than ten percent 


of those values would be recorded as background 


or zero. And that would present a -- certainly 


an issue if in fact the MDA values that you're 


using are lower potentially than those values. 


So we're looking at some of the implications of 


-- of perhaps assigning overly-low MDA values 


as being ones where you will miss dose. And 


we're concerned that at least the -- there's a 


need to look at that particular issue. 


Now in the report, as well as in the matrix, we 


offered forward an approach to how one could go 


about perhaps injecting more conservatism on 


these parameters. And I think the suggestion 


was taking two of the four parameters and using 


the more extreme values to come up with these 


higher MDA values. I think that was only 


offered as a -- one possible pathway. For the 


benefit of the folks on the other end of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

phone, certainly NIOSH identified another way 


to go about looking at the conservatism and the 


precision of these assumptions and coming up 


with another analysis that would give you a MDA 


value based on these more conservative 


assumptions. Certainly we're ready to talk 


about that and look at that. 


I might stop for a moment. If there's any 


questions -- we, again, had gone through this 


yesterday so I think to some extent we had 


covered a number of these issues. If there's 


any questions on any of these issues -- I don't 


think you have the benefit of any of these 


presentation slides, either. 


 (No responses) 


 No questions, okay. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) we have the -- 


 MR. FITZGERALD: I'm talking to the folks on 


the other end of the phone. 


Okay, if I can turn to another issue that 


you'll see in your matrix chart, we're 


certainly looking at the TBD from the 


standpoint of -- of how high-fired -- which is 


the colloquial term for the lower, insoluble 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

171 

plutonium compounds were addressed. And our 


concern there, and I think we've gone through a 


fair amount of analysis in the report -- you 


know, again, were the relatively high MDA 


values that exist in the 1950s and '60s and 


certainly the -- in the .01 becquerel range -- 


relatively high MDA value, and something that 


wasn't improved upon until into the mid-'60s. 


The low fraction of activity intake excreted 


through the urine was another limitation, and 


certainly the historic delay in or lack of 


post-incident urinalysis or fecal analysis were 


all situations where if in fact lower or 


insoluble, or the super S, plutonium was 


involved, certainly you would be concerned 


about perhaps missing a dose from that 


standpoint. 


So, again, our interests or our concern on that 


particular issue is two-fold. One, the 


question of acute intakes of such compounds; 


and two, whether or not in fact in certain 


target organs like the GI tract this might be a 


rather significant contributor, one that has to 


be addressed and included in the -- in the 


analysis. And again, this is something that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

was not perhaps given as much attention as we 


would like to see in the site profile for Rocky 


Flats. And again, we're talking about the site 


profile -- and maybe somebody can correct me, I 


believe it was 2003 when it was generated and 


that -- certainly the version that we looked 


at, so it's been certainly a couple of years -- 


I'm sorry, 2004, so it was a bit over a year 


since that was issued that we looked at it. 


Now my understanding based on yesterday's 


conversation -- discussion that we had, 


certainly -- and this is reflected in the 


report, as well -- that there's an OTIB, which 


is a Technical Information Bulletin, a guide -- 


additional Implementation Guide that's being 


worked on and may be issued soon that addresses 


insoluble oxides. And this is certainly going 


to be the avenue by which we get more specific 


guidance and parameters from NIOSH to address 


this particular issue. Now I don't know 


whether it'll be in time for the discussions 


that we're going to have, but we're hopeful 


that that would be in fact the means by which 


we could tackle the question of insoluble or 


certainly somewhat insoluble plutonium 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

compounds. 


 Another issue that certainly the SC&A team 


addressed is the inadequacies in neutron 


exposure -- excuse me one second, I'm trying to 


get this thing to work; there we go, went too 


far -- inadequacies in neutron exposure 


characterization. Now we've -- certainly look 


at the -- the neutron dose reconstruction 


program, one that's been underway for seven or 


eight years, as a good means to develop the 


correction factors to apply to the NTA-


monitored workers, the ones that were in fact 


monitored using NTA film. The corrections that 


were made through that process I think does 


respond to the issues that revolved around what 


workers were in fact receiving from neutron 


exposures. Our concern, frankly, is how one 


can extend those correction factors beyond the 


NTA energies to not only other energies below 


the 700 to 800 keV threshold, but to other 


workers. Because again, the NTA film study, the 


NDRP* study focused on workers that worked in 


the plutonium operations, so it did not include 


workers in non-plutonium operations or workers 


that may have been exposed to specific sources 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

174 

of neutrons beyond those production facilities. 


At any rate, certainly the concern is to make 


sure that we have correction factors that are 


broadly applied for neutron exposures across 


the Rocky Flats operations. Now at this point 


we feel that the NDRP data focuses on a key, 


but not a complete, part of that spectrum. 


For those on the other end of the phone, we're 


having some technical difficulties that we're 


trying to resolve here, so stand by. 


(Pause) 


Okay, I think we're all set here. Thank you. 


 The other issue which I think is highly 


important to this particular process is that 


the -- and I know some of you are aware of 


this. University of Colorado has a number of 


job category-specific neutron exposure data 


which, in the analysis that we were involved 


with and the sampling that we did, certainly 


was very important -- important from the 


standpoint of looking at potential coworker 


models, the assignment of neutron exposures to 


perhaps workers that were not monitored. Now 


in our discussions with the University of 


Colorado and our discussions with NIOSH, it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

175 

just became clear that certainly the data is 


there, but wasn't yet available to NIOSH and 


NIOSH was going through great pains to try to 


gain access to it. So really I think our only 


finding and sense on this is that it's very 


important information and information that 


should be reflected in the analysis as soon as 


possible, but we're certainly appreciative of 


the efforts that have been underway to get that 


data. 


Is there any questions on the other side? I --


are you still there? 


 MS. BOLLER: Yeah, this is Carolyn in 


Congressman Udall's office. Is that CU data, 


is that coming from Dr. Rutenberg*? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, that's correct, and 


there's -- again, we've talked to -- talked to 


him and I think NIOSH has been in regular 


contact, as well. So again, that -- that 


information is -- is certainly relevant, just a 


matter of obtaining and gaining access to it. 


And NIOSH may have a few more words to say 


about that since they've been in more direct 


contact. 


 The next -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

176

 MR. HILLER: (Unintelligible) --


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- issue I want --


 MR. HILLER: -- (unintelligible) --


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- to talk about is something 


that we're very concerned about, and something 


that we feel needs to be unpacked more in the 


site profile characterization. This gets to 


the heart of the reliability or validity of the 


data that we're -- that we're using in the dose 


reconstruction process. And this is something 


that certainly the Board and we, in our 


reviews, look at quite closely at each site. 


It's almost the cornerstone, whether or not the 


data is reliable, whether or not we can 


understand the pedigree for it and be able to 


trace how in fact it is applied. 


At Rocky Flats it ha-- certainly Rocky Flats 


has a long history and certainly a complexity 


in terms of the operations, and it also has 


certainly accounts that we find troublesome 


that we are still going through and trying to 


take to ground. But these include a number of 


concerns related to the data itself. Certainly 


questions -- and this gets to the dosimetry -- 


questions on algorithms and dosimeter 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

calibrations. That particular issue, the 


question of calibrating the dosimeters, 


surfaced both in GAO investigations and 


testimony on the Hill, as well as internal DOE 


oversight reviews. So it's not a new issue, 


but certainly is -- is a issue -- and this 


again cropped up in the '80s and '90s looking 


back historically -- which raised important 


questions about how in fact dosimeters were 


calibrated, were they in fact calibrated 


correctly and -- and what implications does 


that hold to the reliability of the data that 


was generated by that dosimetry. 


We have certainly other issues. The historic 


assignment of zero doses, null doses, and in 


some cases a category which I frankly haven't 


seen at other sites but certainly at Rocky it's 


been used is this question of "no data 


available". And looking at the history -- and 


again, we -- we did a sampling review. It 


wasn't an exhaustive, research over time, but 


certainly did a sampling review. We certainly 


saw enough evidence that historically these 


values, these placeholders were in fact used in 


the record in a way which, in our mind, raised 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

178 

questions about the policies that were behind 


the use of these values and what practice was 


in place over time, and whether or not -- I 


guess the question -- the word I've -- come to 


me is legitimacy, whether in fact these were 


legitimate values or represented values that 


were used in place of -- of actual dose 


estimates or dose measurements. Again, from 


worker interviews as well as from the accounts, 


as well as the investigation reports that we 


looked at, more questions were raised than 


answered. Certainly it does speak to the 


reliability of the data and one that we would 


want to make sure that the site profile was 


complete on and if anything were to provide 


some substantiation as to how were these used, 


these terminologies, how these terms, these 


units used and on what basis were they 


assigned. 


Another question is the presence of blanks. In 


this case we found that in some instances the 


record shows literally a blank instead of an 


actual reading, and in those cases we've 


established that at some point in time, 


probably prior to '64, that was used where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

179 

somebody had a security badge but did not have 


a dosimeter. So in fact it was left blank, and 


that was the -- kind of the understanding in 


terms of practice. Post-'64 everybody had a 


combination security badge/dosimetry, and at 


that point in time you would not expect to see, 


quote, blanks showing up in the record. 


Now in our review we did see some instances of 


blanks still showing up in the post-'64 time 


frame. I think, again, we would raise those as 


issues that ought to be addressed and looked at 


and put to bed by NIOSH. It gets to, again, 


the question of reliability. 


A number of these may have perfectly suitable 


explanations. I think our concern is that they 


represent loose ends on the reliability issue 


that need to be resolved as we go through and 


actually bring this to fruition. 


Now the other issues I think are in your matrix 


so I'm not going to go through them all, but 


things like the placement of dosimeters in 


relationship to aprons and the question of 


where dosimeters were worn, these are issues 


that I think we've seen at other sites. 


They're not new issues. I think, common to a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

180 

plant that has a history as long as Rocky 


Flats, there certainly would be instances like 


that. But again, we want to be sure about 


those things and certainly the workers we've 


talked to have raised these issues to our 


attention, as well. 


Let me pause for a second. That's sort of a 


lot of information. You don't have the benefit 


to view graphs. Are there any questions on 


some of those issues? 


 MR. HILLER: This is David Hiller. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Hello? 


 MR. HILLER: When you -- when you suggest that 


-- that you're not sure of the -- the reason 


why you see blanks in the records or why values 


were ascribed sort of as placeholders, how -- 


what is the potential impact of those questions 


if they're not satisfactorily answered? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, clearly if we can't come 


up with a substantiation of what the practice 


had been -- you know, what you get down to is 


some question of how you would assign dose. 


And of course NIOSH has addressed this issue at 


other sites and I'll let -- certainly they can 


answer this, as well, but what we're trying to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

181 

get to is a sense of what does this mean in 


terms of the data that's applied, and should in 


fact some special measure be recommended on 


behalf of NIOSH to address these gaps. They --


you know, they represent gaps that may in fact 


be real doses, but for whatever reason, either 


a zero, a blank, perhaps no data available -- 


you know, one of these terms were substituted 


for what should have been a -- an actual dose. 


We're not drawing that conclusion at all at 


this point, but we're just indicating that I 


think we need a better handle on that 


particular question. And if it turns out that, 


you know, we can't -- you know, from the 


historical standpoint -- figure out what the 


practice had been, then I think from a 


conservative standpoint NIOSH would have to 


address that issue as a gap in the database and 


-- and weigh the implications on the 


reliability of the overall data. Right now I 


think we're posing more questions than answers, 


but I think that is exactly right, we have to 


come to a understanding of how that happened. 


 MR. DEMAIORI: Joe, this is Tony DeMaiori with 


the steelworkers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

182

 MR. FITZGERALD: Hi. 


MR. DEMAIORI: On the question of no current 


data available, historically at Rocky Flats 


that was a term used for unexplained dose. If 


your dose was way too high for the operation 


that you were currently working, they would 


zero it to no current data available. It was 


done routinely over the years. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, obviously we would be 


concerned about that. But you know, again, I 


think -- we picked this up in the 


documentation. We certainly heard it from your 


coworkers, and it raises enough questions and 


concern that we wanted to convey that to NIOSH 


and certainly recommend that this is something 


that deserves further attention and -- and 


substantiation. At this point certainly it's ­

- it's one of the number of questions that go 


to the reliability of the data. 


I want to go ahead and just speak to a number 


of issues which probably don't rise to the -- 


necessarily rise to the significance of -- of 


the other issues, but certainly have some 


potential -- some of them have some potential 


as we work through this. As you'll see in your 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

183 

matrix, certainly we raise concerns that ranged 


from the assumed default particle size that was 


being used, and I think we had a useful initial 


dialogue on that with NIOSH. This is the five 


micron AMAD. And I think the -- certainly the 


notion is that there is a practice of applying 


what available data there is before going to 


the default particle size. But again, we were 


concerned that that wasn't as clear as it could 


be. 


Another issue that we still haven't unpacked 


but we're going to spend some time on is this 


notion of -- of how one uses the americium 241 


actual material assay as a means to calibrate 


against the -- the lung counting for plutonium. 


And our concern there, again, is where you have 


lung counting with either pure or relatively 


pure plutonium, but don't have the americium 


marker; is there a concern there that that may 


in fact pose some challenges in terms of the 


actual dose recorded. That's something I think 


we can clarify. Again, we haven't had a -- the 


extensive exchange yet on these issues with 


NIOSH. That process is just starting, but 


certainly we'll be talking about that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

184 

Some of the other issues, the assignment of 


isotropic and rotational instead of anterior-


posterior geometry, which is fancy talk for 


saying, you know, how is a person positioned to 


the radiation source. We feel that there are 


certainly work locations, type of work at Rocky 


Flats where the optimal exposure position for a 


worker and his badge may not be conservative 


capturing -- giving credit to as much radiation 


as possible. And I think what we heard 


yesterday, which is certainly very positive, is 


that NIOSH is considering going to a very 


conservative approach of using the AP or 


anterior-posterior geometry. 


One issue that we looked at at all sites 


because with Department of Energy facilities 


there was a lot of movement of materials 


between sites, and you know, whether it was 


recycled uranium or shipments of -- of material 


from one site to another, this was standard 


practice across the weapons complex, and Rocky 


was no exception. And I think for Rocky Flats 


the recycled uranium issue was not as 


prominent. However, certainly over time 


there's questions of other materials being 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

185 

shipped, and I think we looked at two or three 


instances -- just as -- again, as illustrative 


examples, the U-233 uranyl solution -- 


solutions from Oak Ridge. Certainly there were 


shipments going from Oak Ridge to -- to Rocky 


Flats for processing. Uranium 236 from reactor 


core recoveries from Idaho, that was going to 


Rocky way back when. So you know, you have a 


number of these things where we felt the site 


profile could be improved by characterizing 


some of these shipments that were not main 


process items, but nonetheless represented part 


of the operation and certainly a potential -- 


you know, I look at U-233 with the U-232, 


certainly a potential for exposure for workers 


that might have handled that specifically. 


That is pretty much the highlights of the 


matrix as -- as we stand at this point in time. 


Again, this is the earliest part of the process 


of interchange with NIOSH on behalf of the 


Board. And as with other sites, we intend to 


engage NIOSH in these particular issues and 


certainly attempt to either converge or 


identify issues that have to be further 


addressed. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

186 

Is there any further questions from the 


audience in Colorado? Or anyone here, I guess, 


for that matter -- I'm sorry. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we'll take questions here in 


a moment, Joe. But thank you very much. I 


want to point out particularly to the 


delegation in Colorado that there already has 


been -- over the past I guess three months -- 


two or three months -- ongoing exchanges 


involving our contractor, SC&A, NIOSH and a 


working group of the Board to address the 


various issues in the matrix. And particularly 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's not quite true. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: The workgroup wasn't involved. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- right, I'm sorry. There --


there's been exchanges. I think -- I've seen 


some e-mail exchanges, at least, where the 


questions and so on, but we'll get some 


clarification here. There've been some early 


exchanges of information, but looking forward, 


we -- we have a process that does involve 


formal, face-to-face exchanges. It's a process 


that's been used for other site profiles and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

187 

one which will be used here involving the 


contractor, NIOSH and a Board working group. 


And we will want to extend the invitation to 


someone representing the petitioners to 


participate in that, as well. So we would let 


you folks know when such meetings take place so 


that, if you so desire, you could have a 


presence there, as well, as these issues are 


discussed and we move toward resolving items 


that are raised on the site profile. 


 Also I believe there -- the initial review of 


the site profile was what we call Rev. 0, which 


is the early site profile. I believe we're at 


Rev. 1 now, are we not, Jim, as -- I'm asking 


Jim Neton now, of NIOSH. 


DR. NETON: Actually I think there's six 


chapters to the site profile. Each has their 


own unique --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, a revision, right. 


DR. NETON: -- revision number. Some are at --


 DR. ZIEMER: Some are at Rev. 1 --


DR. NETON: -- Revision 1, but most are still 


are Revision 0. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- right. So it's a bit of a mix, 


but it's an ongoing process of updating the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

188 

site profile as new information is gained. 


DR. NETON: Correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now let me open the floor for 


Board questions here, or comments. 


 DR. WADE: I'd only like to -- this is Lew Wade 


-- to make one comment, then maybe Jim has a 


comment to make in terms of the status of 


things with regard to NIOSH. And my comment is 


simply to remind you of the time lines we're 


looking at and sort of what's in front of us. 


We talked about this yesterday, but the Board 


does have a phone call meeting scheduled for 


March 14th, a face-to-face meeting scheduled 


for April 25th, 26th and 27th. My tentative 


plan is to hold that meeting in Denver, 


Colorado. I would certainly hope we'd be in a 


position to have the Board presented with an 


evaluation plan before that meeting and have 


the Board make a recommendation to the 


Secretary on the Rocky Flats site profile 


(sic). That said, there's work to be done and 


I would like the Board to -- to put in motion 


what it needs to put in motion to see that we 


can achieve those goals. 


Jim, could you just update us very quickly as 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

189 

to NIOSH's position now relative to this 


process? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I don't want to take up a lot 


of the Board's time. We went over in some 


detail yesterday NIOSH's draft responses to the 


21 individual issues that were identified in 


what I'll call the consolidated matrix that 


came out in mid-December. It's available on 


the table. I believe the folks in the Colorado 


delegation and the union representatives or 


petitioners have -- have that document now. 


do believe that SC&A has done their usual very 


thorough job reviewing this profile, and we 


commend them for that. 


I just do want to point out that the 


consolidated matrix and all the efforts right 


now are -- we're going to try I think to be 


directed towards resolving issues that are of 


specific relevance to the site profile -- I 


mean the SEC --


 DR. ZIEMER: SEC --


DR. NETON: -- petition we have in our hands at 


this time, and I think Joe did a good job 


summarizing the five key issues, along with the 


other lesser significant issues. I think the 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

190 

first two he mentioned, the MDA issue and the 


super insoluble material, we've come a long way 


towards resolving or coming -- coming to terms 


with SC&A already. I look forward to working 


with them and addressing the other issues in 


the upcoming working group meetings. 


 MS. BOLLER: This is Carolyn with Congressman 


Udall's office. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. BOLLER: I just want to make one statement. 


First of all, we believe it's extremely 


important that Tony and his folks be actively 


involved in this whole process, so it's good to 


know that that offer has been made and we 


should be kept in -- he should be kept in the 


loop. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. BOLLER: The second piece is, I believe the 


entire delegation is very well aware of a lot 


of these issues, and we are very supportive of 


this petition. We all get those phone calls 


from those people who are sick and dying while 


we're going through this process. And while we 


don't want you to skip over something, we -- we 


would strongly encourage you to get this thing 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

191 

done so that we can -- can talk with our folks 


about it, who are sick, who worked at Rocky 


Flats, and who need these benefits. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. Mark Griffon has 


a comment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just actually a couple of 


questions maybe. One for Joe, I just wanted to 


clarify this finding number two on the matrix, 


and it talks about the high-fir-- the super S 


class and the doses to the GI tract. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure we have time to get 


into it here at the Board level, but it 


references page 40, and all the -- all the 


tables I see there compare Type S and Type M. 


I don't see any super S compared, and it also 


seems to me that the GI tract doses per sievert 


excreted are higher, but it's not intake, so I 


just --


 MR. FITZGERALD: Well, I think if --


 MR. GRIFFON: I want to know if --


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- there's a specific table that 


addresses this issue of the super S compared -- 


you know. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

192

 MR. FITZGERALD: Actually I think in the 


analysis we established that the so-called 


super S was synonymous with S, and I don't 


think we found a distinction that was worth 


making the distinction for in the table itself, 


so the S is the super S -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: -- in a sense. On the other 


issue, I -- you have me at a disadvantage since 


I don't have my internal dosimetrist. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 'cause when I look at it I 


see sievert per -- sievert per becquerel 


excreted. 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Yeah, we'll have to get that ­

- we'll have to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Certainly the numbers are higher 


for the lower large intestine and 


(unintelligible) --


 MR. FITZGERALD: I'll have to clarify that 


later. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and that would be expected 


'cause it --


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) slower, but ­

- but sievert per intake, if you -- if you make 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

193 

sure you're bringing urine data back to intake 


values --


 MR. FITZGERALD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think -- I'm surprised by 


that, so I guess we have to look into that 


further, maybe at the -- Jim wants to 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim -- Jim Neton can respond here. 


DR. NETON: I might be able to clarify a little 


bit. I don't think the super S issue has gone 


away. I think we all acknowledge that there is 


highly insoluble compounds, more than Class S, 


at Rocky Flats. It's been demonstrated in 


autopsy cases at Rocky and at the Transuranic 


Registry. The issue with the GI tract -- we 


believe the doses to the lung are adequately 


covered by S because they're already more -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


DR. NETON: -- more than likely over 50 


percent, we've been through that. The issue 


with the GI tract is that if you calculate 


intake based on a urinary excretion using S, 


you're going to come up with some value. If it 


really is super S, the intake retention 


fraction you applied is inappropriate and the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

194 

intake could be possibly orders of magnitude 


higher. If that's the case, even though it's 


coming out more slowly, if you integrate the 


dose to the GI tract over 50 years, you may end 


up with a higher dose to the GI tract, or 


underestimate it. And that, in my mind, is the 


only real issue remaining on the table. 


I think we can pretty much demonstrate systemic 


organs are adequately covered by S, and -- and 


lung cancers are adequately going to be 


probably compensated by S. So this GI tract 


issue I think is the central issue here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree with that. I agree with 


that point, I just didn't see that in the 


tables that I was looking at, so... 


 MR. FITZGERALD: Again, I think that -- that's 


the reason. We didn't make a distinction in 


the tables between super S and S, but focused 


on S. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other comments? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- this is --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark, go ahead. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I guess this is for Jim, too, 


I -- I'm just wondering, and since you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

195 

mentioned that -- that the priority issues were 


focusing on now, I guess one thing that -- that 


comes to my mind is, of the claimants in the 


SEC petition class, is there any coworker model 


here? I'm not sure whether Rocky relies on a 


coworker model and if that's included in the 


site profile review or... 


DR. NETON: That was actually one of the 


comments that SC&A made was that they weren't ­

- they didn't see evidence of a coworker model. 


And much like the Y-12 site profile, we 


typically don't include the coworker models in 


the site profiles. It would be modeled 


separately and we will have a coworker model 


for Rocky Flats --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) But since -- 


since we are in this sort of middle ground here 


between a petition and a site profile, I think 


(unintelligible) --


DR. NETON: We're well aware that we need to 


have a coworker approach to cover those cases, 


and we -- we --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) And I guess the 


same follow-up that we asked for Y-12, maybe we 


want to get a sense of how -- how many members 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

196 

of the cl-- what percentage of the class this 


might affect, the coworker model. If it's 


going to be --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- used for 80 percent like with 


Y-12 or is it -- is it a much smaller 


percentage. 


DR. NETON: Right, I think we understood -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


DR. NETON: -- that we need to give the Board 


some sense as to what we -- you know, what 


we're going to be extrapolating and what's 


going to be based on real data. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then the other, Jim -- the 


other obvious follow-up from me, since you're 


probably ready for this, is the integrity or 


validity of the data. That's come up in a 


finding. Has any of the -- have you made any 


progress toward exploring ways to validate the 


data? 


DR. NETON: We're working towards that with 


ORAU as we speak. I mean we -- we recognize 


that this is going to be a recurring issue. 


You see some of those issues reflected in the 


SC&A review, but we also know that we need to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

197 

go back and look at the -- any electronic 


records we have and look at the pedigree of 


those and establish some comfort to the Board 


that they -- they are what they purport to be. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Part of the reason I raise these 


is to -- to Lew's point of this time line, and 


these are certainly easy points to say but hard 


points to -- to (unintelligible). 


DR. NETON: We understand, yeah, that is -- 


that we're under the gun right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me direct this question also 


to either Jim Neton or Larry Elliott. This is 


relative to the April meeting, and Lew has 


pointed out the desire to be ready to present a 


recommendation on the SEC to the Board. You 


have seen at least the preliminary drafts of 


what the Board thinks an SEC procedure for us 


should look like in terms of the issues that 


need to be addressed. Do you feel fairly 


confident at this point, if we have something 


that looks pretty much like the draft that 


you've already seen, that you'll be in a 


position to -- to address the issues, including 


sample dose calculations and so on, along the 


lines that were described in Dr. Melius's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

198 

presentation on -- on the format and so on? 


DR. NETON: We are behaving as if something 


similar is going to be -- be the benchmark. We 


can't predict it will, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


DR. NETON: -- but we're working towards that 


end, the pedigree of the data. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


DR. NETON: I think the second issue which is 


key, that -- that -- again, many of these 


issues are raised in SC&A's review, maybe not 


in exactly the terms that are in the draft 


document from the Board, but such -- things 


such as if you have a lot of data, make sure 


that all the other ancillary nuclides that were 


there that could have resulted in exposure are 


covered with some type of monitoring program 


and some approach, and also the draft example 


dose reconstructions for those activities. So 


-- but we're working towards that. We -- we're 


trying to fill those holes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Understood, and just -- at this 


point no one has identified any show-stoppers 


in achieving that, I guess, or gaps that have 


been overlooked -- well, I guess if it's a gap, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

199 

we don't know that it's... 


DR. NETON: Yeah. I think the pedigree issue 


or the reliability issue is -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is going to be the key thing. 


DR. NETON: -- is going to be the key thing 


right now. We -- we need to be moving forward 


on that fairly rapidly, 'cause if we can't 


address that issue, then the other ones are not 


even relevant anymore. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. NETON: I mean if you don't have good data 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. NETON: -- 'cause we're hanging our hat on 


that data to develop these models. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, just to follow up on that. 


I would also hope that we'd be able, in our 


discussion later this afternoon on the 


workgroup report, as well as SC&A's procedure ­

- or presentation on SEC -- procedure for SEC 


review, we would be able to meld that process 


into (unintelligible) to the extent that that 


would also facilitate the nature of SC&A's 


review to not be just on a site profile, but 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

200 

also on the SEC evaluation. I think that could 


be helpful and (unintelligible) will be a 


proposal to be able to get that underway right 


after this meeting, so that's -- is what we 


hopefully will be able to do and hopefully 


that'll all work out for -- for this particular 


petition. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any additional comments or 

questions? 

 MR. HILLER: This is David Hiller. Let me --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, David. 

 MR. HILLER: -- ask one other question, if I 

may, please. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. HILLER: In the -- the NIOSH response on 

this -- on the matrix, issue nine, which is, as 


I understand it, the issue that raises these 


questions of reliability and validity of the 


data, NIOSH indicates it's not the purview of 


the TBD to correct any operational deficiencies 


in a non-extant program. We certainly 


understand that and don't hold NIOSH 


responsible for what wasn't done at Rocky Flats 


over the past decades. But it seems that this 


goes directly to the issue that will before the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

201 

advisory committee in terms of whether it is 


feasible or not feasible to estimate with 


sufficient accuracy the radiation dose that the 


class received. Am I understanding the 


conversation correctly that that is the -- the 


most critical issue that you're looking at? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim Neton is going to address that 


here, just --


DR. NETON: David, I didn't know if you were or 


were not on the call yesterday when we went 


over the resolution matrix, but I indicated in 


my presentation that we actually were off the 


mark in what the intent was for question -- or 


comment number nine, and will be revising that 


-- our response. The response that you see 


from NIOSH addresses an internal dosimetry 


issue, not the external dosimetry issues that 


were raised related to calibration and people 


not wearing badges and that sort of thing. 


 Related to your -- it's not the purview of the 


TBD to correct operational deficiencies in non-


extant programs, I'm not actually clear what 


was meant by that, either, at this point, and I 


will promise that I will get back and get an 


interpretation of that. 

1 

2 

3 -- 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

202

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you got an answer to -- that 


is that the matrix shows the wrong information 


DR. NETON: Yeah, (unintelligible) at this 


point. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so we will get the right 


information and need to get that transmitted -- 


DR. NETON: We will be --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- to the Colorado --


DR. NETON: -- revising the matrix -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- folks, as well. 


DR. NETON: -- and getting that out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HILLER: Okay. Well, I appreciate that. 


But that still -- with regard to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: The question may remain. 


 MR. HILLER: -- the issue of reliability and 


validity, that still seems to be a critical 


issue in terms of the accuracy of the radiation 


dose. Am I right? 


DR. NETON: We totally agree with that. Yes. 


 MR. HILLER: Let me just say then that -- to 


follow up on Carolyn's earlier comment, that 


Senator Salazar, and I think all of the 


delegation, is -- is focused on that issue. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

203 

And if we don't have sufficient information to 


determine the dose to this class, then you 


know, we need to get this petition resolved 


immediately. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 

DR. NETON: Understood. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

 MR. HILLER: Thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Any further comments? 

 DR. WADE: If no one else does, I have a 


couple. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Lew, uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: One is a comment, one is a question 


to the Board. I mean life with this Board is 


about tensions, and there's always tensions, 


and we're going to face another tension. I 


mean NIOSH, as an organization, needs to decide 


when it's prepared to bring an evaluation 


report to the Board. NIOSH has many things to 


consider there. They will be considering the 


Board's desire for information of a certain 


type. It could well be that NIOSH will feel 


compelled to bring an evaluation report to the 


Board before it can meet all of those tests. 


And again, clearly we would rather not do that, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

204 

but -- but that is a tension that we'll face, 


and I just want it to be on the record as to 


that tension. 


The other issue that I have is, when the 


working group meets -- and I assume there will 


be a working group -- I would like the Board's 


guidance as to whether you want those working 


group meetings to be open to the public or not. 


I know it's a small issue, but it's one that's 


important for us in terms of doing our planning 


and our noticing. So I assume that you will 


have a working group address Rocky Flats 


issues, and I'd like to hear a little bit about 


that, and then I would like some guidance as to 


whether you want those issues open -- those 


meetings opened. If they're not opened, we 


certainly will have the petitioners present and 


represented, but the Board has advised 


different ways for different meetings, so I'd 


be curious as to your guidance. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, you have a --

 DR. MELIUS: I just want to --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- comment? Jim Melius. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- respond to Lew's comments. I 

understand what you're saying, Lew, but at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

205 

same time I think, based on -- to some extent 


on our past experience and so forth, it is not 


helpful to the Board, to the credibility of the 


overall SEC process and the overall program for 


the premature attempt to review an SEC 


evaluation, SEC petition. I think it actually 


sets us back more than it moves -- thing ahead. 


It certainly tends to waste everyone's time 


involved, and I think if anything increases 


tension than decreases it. So I would hope it 


would be done very carefully. If there's a 


legitimate disagreement on -- on whether or not 


an issue's been satisfactorily resolved or is 


at the point of satisfactory resolution, that's 


one thing. For sort of a deliberate saying 


well, we don't care what you say, we're going 


to present it anyway, only to have us then say 


well, no, we want this or, you know, that's not 


appropriate, then -- then I don't think that's 


-- that's helpful and it just shifts -- it just 


doesn't help. 


 DR. WADE: I understand. I think we'll be -- 


we'll talk about that issue a bit tomorrow when 


we talk about this draft rule, the rule that's 


out there and your comment on the rule. But 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

206 

there are -- there are considerations that have 


to be taken into account. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do you -- do you 


have any preferences and -- we have -- we have 


this site profile and SEC, we have others 


coming down the line. Certainly in all cases 


the information will be made publicly 


available, as a minimum, and we will invite 


representatives of the petitioners. Do you 


want the meetings open beyond that? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Joe, is it possible for us to 


get a copy of your presentation? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we will -- we can -- can we 


get that FAXed out there? 


 MR. FITZGERALD: We have electronic as well as 


hard copy, so either way, we can 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll try to --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- get that out as quickly -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as we can. We'll need to, 


maybe off-line, find out where to send it. 


 DR. WADE: Jason can do it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jason can do that. Yes, we'll get 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

207 

that out to you as quickly as we can. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Great. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, what -- you want to 


simply declare these meetings to be open, if 


people want to attend... 


 DR. WADE: Is that -- Mark, I mean I -- Mark, 


you've lived these. Is that a good idea? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I mean I -- I think we 


should have them open. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think they'll be self-limiting. 


You know, they -- I -- I don't think -- as long 


as we're specific with our agendas, if we 


discuss the Rocky Flats profile, the 


petitioners and maybe a few others will join 


the... 


 DR. WADE: Okay, fine. Thank you. So I can --


 DR. ZIEMER: Can I take it by consent that that 


represents the Board's view? Any objections? 


 (No responses) 


Appear to be none, so we'll assume that all 


these working group meetings will be open. We 


will keep a record -- are we talking about 


verbatim transcripts on these? Yes. 


 DR. WADE: We do that. Yes, we do. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

208

 DR. ZIEMER: So there will be a complete and 


open record on all the proceedings. 


 Now Board members, the other issue to keep in 


mind as we kind of proliferate on reviewing 


site profiles, so far we've had one working 


group dealing with all of them. I know most of 


you would like to have that same working group 


do them all, and -- and the new guys are coming 


on board, but do you -- do you want to have at 


least one additional work group to sort of 


divvy the work up, or -- how does the exist-- 


let me ask the existing workgroup how they feel 


about multiple -- I know that if you go to 


Cincinnati for one of these meetings, from an 


efficiency point of view, you may as well do 


two as one, perhaps. But nonetheless, it 


throws a burden on a few of the members to 


handle the bulk of the workload. Mark, you --


why don't you respond 'cause you've -- you've ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- we've started into 


Rocky, so I sort of have a -- you know -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: You don't want to give that up. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) gotten into a 


little bit. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

209

 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But I mean the other question I 


guess would be at some -- you know, at what 


point is this a subcommittee where -- it seems 


like it's a standing -- although we have 


different tasks. I guess we change tasks -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so... 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I think we can continue at 


least through Rocky to do this as a workgroup. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I mean I (unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if there -- if --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) on these 


conference calls and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) matrix so far 


with Rocky, so (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: If there's no objection, we can 


keep the same workgroup, at least through 


Rocky, and that again would be Mark Griffon, 


Robert Presley, Michael Gibson and Wanda Munn. 


The four of you are willing and able? Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Able, no question. 


 MS. MUNN: Depends on who you ask. 

210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that will be at least the 


working group. We can add to that if we wish 


when we get new members aboard, but we'll start 


out with that. The workgroup will -- will 


coordinate with NIOSH and SC&A, and will -- we 


need to bring the Denver folks -- who will that 


be from the petitioners there? That will be --


MR. DEMAIORI: It'll be Tony DeMaiori with the 


USW. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So we'll keep you in the 


loop as we get dates established for the-- 


these meetings typically will be in Cincinnati, 


typically one-day meetings, but we'll -- we'll 


keep you in the loop as we move forward on 


that. Okay? 


Thank you very much, all those out in the 


Colorado delegation. We appreciate your input 


today. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you. And just to add to 


the record, let us know when there's a 


(unintelligible) when the working group meets, 


that'll be helpful, too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we will do that. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you. 


HANFORD SITE PROFILE – PRESENTATION
 

COMMENTS, DISCUSSION, PLAN OF ACTION
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

211 

NIOSH


 DR. ZIEMER: Our next item of discussion is on 


the Hanford site profile. I would like to 


point out that here with us, in person today, 


is Livia Lam -- I think Livia -- is Livia still 


here? Yes. Livia is a legislative assistant 


for Senator Cantwell, and we welcome Livia here 


today. Are there others from Washington by 


phone? Okay, Livia, it's all on you then. 


Right? 


 MS. LAM: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. WADE: And in your book -- in your tab on 


Hanford, there is communication from Senator 


Cantwell, a response from John Howard, another 


communication from Senator Cantwell, so I just 


point that out to you that -- so you have some 


history of -- of these interactions. Under 


Hanford. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Under Hanford. This is the -- 


yes, this is the letter that -- it went to both 


John Howard and to me, and some information was 


requested, and John Howard went ahead and 


answered that, and I saw no need then for me to 


answer it, although I still could follow-up if 


the Board so desired. But this was -- this was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

212 

one that was attended to. Does the Board feel 


there's any additional correspondence necessary 


at this point? Recall, again, I could not 


respond without the Board's input, but since it 


was addressed to both John Howard and to me and 


John provided the requested information, we 


basically let it ride at that. And you have 


the correspondence there. 


Well, let us proceed then with the -- 


 DR. WADE: No, I need to do my conflict -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, we need to do the 


conflict of interest statement. 


 DR. WADE: Now this is a site profile 


discussion, and my notes would indicate that 


the only Board member conflicted is Wanda Munn 


on Hanford. Let me point out to you that the 


policy operating to is that when discussing a 


site profile, Board members who have a conflict 


may participate in the discussion at the table, 


but cannot make motions or vote on motions. So 


Ms. Munn, you are -- you are so instructed. 


 MS. MUNN: I understand. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So the presentation on 


Hanford for the site profile review will be 


given by John Mauro. John, welcome. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

213 

DR. MAURO: Good afternoon, everyone. Dr. 


Ziemer, Livia, nice to see you again. I'll be 


giving the presentation on Hanford. In fact, I 


think we should set the table a little bit for 


Hanford because it was about a year ago -- a 


little less than a year, maybe 11 months ago -- 


when work actually began. It was one of the 


first site profile reviews that we began, and 


it involved the typical steps -- you know, 


reviewing the document, and we had a large team 


of people reviewing the document, reviewing all 


the references. We did meet -- we did meet 


with many representatives, workers, experts. 


We did have extensive discussions with NIOSH, 


authors of the site profile, and the work 


product came out -- it's this 291-page document 


that was issued in June. And since June a lot 


has happened. A lot of the issues that we 


raised here, there are -- and by the way, we 


did -- let me move this along. 


 Let's see, which one -- I guess I should use 


this right here -- it's the other one now, and 


I guess just press the top button or the center 


button? We'll see in a minute. No, not that, 


let's try this. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

214

 (Pause) 


Okay. As I was mentioning, on June 10th the 


large site profile review was issued. Then we 


were requested -- then we moved into this mode 


of preparing matrices. You know, a 291-page 


document is a lot to lift and digest and to use 


as a tool to try to track things, so the Board 


had requested on November 16th that we prepare 


an issues-tracking matrix, and that of course 


is the way we are managing ourselves these 


days. And we did, very recently, on January 


16th send out a two-page matrix that summarizes 


the 11 issues -- major issues as -- it's -- to 


try to boil down a 291-page document into 11 


issues, but you know, I think -- you know, it 


serves its purpose, as long as we, you know, 


don't lose sight that there's a lot of texture 


here. And so what I'm going to be doing is 


going through the matrix. 


What I'd like to point out is when -- when you 


-- when you step back and you look at the site 


profile, you find out that it really boils down 


to major concerns. There are a lot of 


concerns, but our major concerns have to do 


with neutron doses, especially in the early 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

215 

years, and we're going to talk about that quite 


a bit. And the other has to do with exposures 


to some exotic -- I call them exotic -- 


radionuclides. Because of the very complex 


array of transuranics and radionuclides and 


experiments that were involved in this -- at 


this site over many, many years, having a good 


handle on the types of radionuclides that were 


at play and what the doses were to people who 


were involved in handling that material becomes 


very challenging. So we're really going to be 


talking about external exposure, neutron; 


internal exposures to plutonium, americium, 


curium and many other radionuclides that are -- 


are of concern for the reasons we'll -- we'll 


get into. 


 Neutron exposures are important for a very 


simple reason. If you think back to the 


reactors in the 100 area, they basically had a 


neutron reflector and they had a thermal 


shield, a biological shield. But then they had 


hundreds -- many hundreds of holes, ports, in 


which instrumentation, fuel was entered and you 


look into the record, you find out that there 


was -- lot of maintenance had to be done on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

216 

these units and that -- you also look into the 


record and you find out many of the workers had 


-- they determined they had some sodium 24 as a 


body burden, which means that -- that's -- 


means they were exposed to some neutron 


exposure which resulted in neutron activation. 


So our main concerns sort of, as we got into 


the process, is that exposure to neutrons, 


especially in the early years, and they were 


not really adequately monitored, especially in 


the early years. In fact, a good break point 


is 1972; 1972 was the year when they moved into 


the Hanford multi-purpose dosimeter. That's a 


dosimeter that has five elements, uses TLDs and 


does a very nice job of measuring not only 


gamma exposure but also neutron exposure. 


Now we have lots of comments on that, too, but 


those are what I call second order comments 


where you could deal with -- you know, coming 


at adjustment factors for properly interpreting 


that data. 


But prior to that -- or our main concern is 


that okay, how good a job was done in the -- in 


the -- in those early years when they didn't 


have the Hanford multi-purpose dosimeter? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

217 

Well, in those early years what was done was 


take advantage of data that you had on the 


neutron-to-photon ratios. You can almost 


visualize one of these pass-through reactors or 


-- in the 100 area with all the ports, and 


whenever you have a stream or a photon field, 


you're going to have some neutrons coming along 


with them. The -- and so -- so if you can get 


a handle on the ratio of neutrons to photons, 


you've got your first hook into coming up with 


the neutron dose. So what -- what -- our main 


concern was was a -- was a good job done in 


coming up with the neutron-to-photon ratios. 


Now -- and we're going to get a little -- now 


we dig down to the weeds a little bit because 


this is where the rubber meets the road on this 


particular issue. Okay? 


We're going to go back -- between 1950 and 


1961, this was before the multi-purpose 


dosimeters, the single-pass reactors, and I 


listed the reactors, there -- there's good 


reason to believe that the workers there 


experienced some neutron exposure. They wore 


NTA film and they did see positive readings. 


They wore their regular film badges where they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

218 

got photon exposures. They said well, listen, 


we need to somehow get a ratio, neutron-tophoton ratio with the data we have. 


Now the first thing that we notice is that with 


the way in which the site profile comes at the 


problem, it says well, we found seven workers 


that worked at those facilities at that time 


where we have both NTA film -- neutron detector 


film -- and -- regular film badges, and so from 


that you can come up with a neutron-to-photon 


ratio, so we've got seven workers. Well, this 


was the first -- now that one piece of 


information is the first place where our 


antenna goes up, says hmm, you've got all these 


workers working over all these years -- I don't 


know how many, there may be literally thousands 


of workers somehow involved, let's say, in 


working with all these reactors. We're really 


not quite sure what the number of workers, but 


in the end what we're saying is we have data 


for seven workers where we have neutron-tophoton ratios, where you simply look at the 


photon exposures of the film badge and the NTA 


exposure and you get a ratio of one to the 


other. And we have it for seven workers. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

219 

Now what NIOSH did, and ple-- and by the way, 


this is the first time we're bringing all this 


forward. We have -- this is -- this may be day 


one of what we would call the review cycle, 


because prior to today you really haven't 


entered into a dialogue. So as I describe -- 


summarize this information -- be very 


interested in feedback as to whether this is 


the proper understanding of what in fact was 


done in this -- by -- in the site profile or 


whether we -- perhaps we got it wrong, but my 


understanding, our understanding is for those 


years, for those reactors, what was done to 


come up with the neutron to photon ratio was 


they had seven workers. That's not very many 


workers, given the complexity and size of the 


site to number of workers. So that -- that's ­

- I guess we'd say issue number one, is that 


good enough. 


Second thing is they said well, we've got five 


different -- we have -- we have these seven 


workers, but there are a lot of different ways 


you could come up with this neutron-to-photon 


ratio, and -- and as we understand it, NIOSH 


used five different methods. On the left-hand 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

220 

side is the most conservative method and on the 


right-hand side is what we'll call the most 


realistic method. So you could -- so the 


neutron-to-photon ratio, based on these seven 


workers, the average, went from a high of .431 


-- which means if you have one rad from -- from 


gamma, you've got .431 from neutron -- and down 


to .09. Well, what -- what I -- our 


understanding is, in light of this and the 


uncertainty, the decision was made, let's go 


with this distribution. So in other words, if 


you're going to reconstruct a dose to a worker 


and you have some film badge data and you say I 


want to try to figure out what his neutron 


exposure is, you multiply his film badge 


readings with its uncertainty by this 


distribution, and now you've got a distribution 


on the neutron dose for those -- for those 


workers. 


Now -- so that's our starting point. It's 


almost like the rock we're standing on, at 


least for those reactors at that time period. 


Okay. Now -- but then they said well, there's 


one more thing we have to do. In addition to 


coming up with this distribution, we recognize 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

221 

that NTA film is really not a very good 


detector, especially for neutrons that might be 


coming from a reactor where the neutrons are 


attenuated and they may actually be attenuated 


down to an energy level that's below the 


threshold that can be seen by NTA film. So 


what happened was the -- NIOSH decided that 


well, we believe that film badge -- NTA film 


that they had data for really only captured 28 


percent of the exposure, so they multiplied 


that distribution by 3.57. Okay? And now they 


have an adjustment factor that says now we're 


going to -- to account for the fact that the -- 


the neu-- the NTA film itself has these 


deficiencies. 


Now when we look at that, we ask ourselves 


well, here's where our second -- the antenna go 


up again. We say to ourselves well, is that -- 


is that good enough. Is there any reason to 


believe -- you know, they did not have -- as 


best -- to our knowledge, the actual energy 


distribution of the neutron flux coming out 


from these reactors for different locations, 


different times. So in order to come up with 


that adjustment factor, you have to have some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

222 

knowledge of what the energy distribution is of 


the neutron flux that you're dealing with. 


Now if it turns out that the vast majority of 


the neutrons leaving the reactor were below .7 


MeV, well, you're really not -- for all intents 


and purposes, you're not going to see anything. 


So -- and if you don't -- so that becomes an 


important factor. So when we enter into our 


dialogue and -- with Jim, you know, we're -- 


we're going to be talking about whether or not 


that .28 -- or the 2.57 multiplier is a good 


number or not. 


 Now from previous meetings we heard a lot about 


well, now -- well, the reality is you can see 


.3 MeV. I -- I would argue that that's a 


little misleading. I'll explain why. 


If the proton in the gel that -- in the film -- 


in the NTA film is moving with .3 MeV, ripping 


its way through, it'll create enough tracks 


that you will be able to count a track. But 


for that proton in the film badge to experience 


a 3 MeV, it's got to be hit with a billiard 


board -- ball head-on collision, right square 


on where a 3 -- .3 MeV neutron crashes like a 


ball -- like a billiard ball, crashes directly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

223 

into a proton and delivers that full -- its 


energy to it and it takes off. If it's a -- if 


it's a glancing blow, and it turns out only a 


very, very small percentage of the neut-- of 


the neutrons that interact with protons are 


these direct hits, so yes, someone could argue 


in theory you could see something at .3 MeV if 


you have a direct, head-on collision, but most 


of the collisions aren't. So from a practical 


standpoint, and here's a place where we'll get 


into a dialogue, our position is well, for all 


intents and purposes, if you're below .7 MeV 


you're going to start missing an awful lot. 


So issue -- you know, the second issue within 


the -- this -- what I call the neutron-tophoton ratio issue for this time period is can 


we really -- is -- is it good enough to use the 


measurements from the seven workers. Second, 


is the .28 -- 28 percent adjustment factor for 


NTA film, is that good enough, does it really 


give -- is -- is it doing justice to the 


situation really. We'll move on. 


Let's move on to the N reactor 'cause this is a 


little later generation. See, those were the 


earlier reac-- pass -- one-pass reactors. Now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

224 

we have a closed-loop reactor. Now what 


happens here is -- we have the same problem. 


We don't -- we have to come up with what the 


neutron-to-photon ratio is, but now we're 


dealing with the N reactor. When -- when all ­

- when all is said and done, what we found out 


is well, they basically used the same data, the 


-- the same information, except they threw one 


more factor in. They said well, we know we -- 


we believe -- we believe that for the N reactor 


-- we have all this experience from these 


single-pass reactors, and we probably need to 


fix some of the -- the problems we've seen in 


these other reactors where there was -- there 


were lots of problems regarding neutron and 


photon exposures, so there's literature that 


goes in there -- goes into a description of 


shielding that's going to be added to this 


generation of reactor, or to the N reactor. 


And on the basis of that analysis, a reduction 


factor I believe of -- a seven-fold reduction 


factor was applied to the -- to the 


distribution. Remember the distribution we had 


before? Well, what they did is said well, 


whatever that neutron to photon ratio was, the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

225 

one we had before, we're going to reduce it by 


a factor of seven because we're going to take 


credit for the additional shielding that was 


put in. 


But one of the things that we found out, and 


this is a question that we need to discuss, is 


we don't know if that shielding was ever really 


installed. They talk about it. There are 


calculations about it would be nice to have 


this shielding to correct this problem. But 


right now one of our questions is was that 


shielding ever installed, and did it in fact 


achieve a seven-fold reduction in the neutron-


to-photon ratio. Okay? So that's -- that's an 


issue. 


Let's go on. Oh, now we're going to -- we're 


still talking about neutron-to-photon ratios, 


but now we're going to talk about the plutonium 


facilities, plutonium finishing facilities in 


the 200 area. What they -- they took a 


different tact (sic) here -- okay? -- in the 


TBD, as we understand it. Post-1972 they had 


the Hanford multi-purpose dosimeters, which 


means that they got some really good 


measurements, neutrons and photons, so you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

226 

could come up with a good neutron-to-photon 


ratio. And they did. They said for post-'72 


data we'll -- we'll take that data and they 


came up with well, we know what the geometric 


mean -- the geometric standard deviation for 


the distribution of the neutron-to-photon 


ratios are, so now we have a real good handle ­

- if we know what the photon exposure is, we 


could use this distribution to get a handle on 


the neutron exposure. And the -- and the 


multi-purpose dosimeter captures the full range 


of energy, so it's a good -- but there are -- I 


don't want to discount -- we do have some 


concerns about that, also, but those are what I 


call second order concerns. 


Now, the fir-- you'll see that -- our comments 


on this, we have basically two comments. One 


is we notice that when they did that work -- 


that is, come up with those ratios from the 


HMPDs -- they went with a dataset where the 


measured values were above 20 millirem, but we 


noticed that the minimum detectable limit was 


50 millirem, so I'm not quite sure how that, 


you know, plays out. That is, if -- if they 


selected set -- datasets that -- where they 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

227 

said -- where -- that these are the -- the 


HMPDs that we're going to use and they picked ­

- they selected them based on a cut-off of 20 


millirem as being a low limit of detection, but 


the actual low limit of detection for neutrons 


was 50, I'm not qui-- I'm not quite sure and 


we're not quite sure what implications that has 


with respect to that distribution. But that --


that, I would say, is a relatively minor issue. 


 The more important issue that we -- we are 


concerned with is they're taking that ratio now 


that they obtained from post-1972 data and 


they're going to apply that ratio to pre-'72. 


Okay? That sounds reasonable, everything else 


being the same that's a reasonable thing to do. 


But we have reason to believe that everything 


else wasn't the same. That is, in the earlier 


years there -- there's literature that says 


that -- that there was a lot more hands-on 


operations. In addition, there was a lot of 


additional shielding installed. So the 


question becomes the distribution of values, 


the neutron-to-photon ratios that we see post­

'72, is it appropriately applied to pre-'72 


without any adjustments to take into 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

228 

consideration some design and operational 


changes that occurred. 


Okay, that covers the neutron issues, and I 


would imagine the -- we will be having 


meetings, and we're going to be talking about 


it. But it's really clean. I mean the issues 


-- you know, the areas where we have our 


concerns, there's -- are something you can sink 


your teeth into so I'm expecting that when we 


do engage in this process what we'll -- we'll ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: John, before you leave the 


neutrons, I'm a little surprised -- I don't 


know if you or Jim can speak to this, but if 


you'd asked me just out of the blue, I would 


have guessed that the Hanford folks had 


spectral data in workplace for neutrons. Did 


they not have spectral data? 'Cause I would 


have thought the practice was that they would 


take the spectral data and then have a 


calibration factor against either the NTA film 


or whatever they're using to -- to go from 


whatever the film detected to dose. Is there 


no evidence of spectral data in the workplace 


for these various reactors? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

229

 DR. BEHLING: I think that's explained in our 


TBD review, and the 28 percent or the 3.52 


correction factor actually used a tissue 


equivalent proportional counter as a reference 


value to NTA film. In other words, take the 


tissue equivalent proportional counter in a 


given facility, measure its dose or integrated 


dose over a period of time and compare that to 


NTA film, and that's where the 28 percent 


correction factor comes into play. At least 


that was the way I interpreted it when I read 


the TBD and -- and therefore the issue of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: That would have been specific for 


a particular facility then. 


 DR. BEHLING: Well, it is specific for the 


eight single-pass reactors that were identified 


in one of the slides that John showed where you 


had the seven workers and there were the five 


methods --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so that's where that came 


from. 


 DR. BEHLING: Yes, and it's --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- it's really not based on 


spectral analysis, but comparing one NTA film 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

230 

against the tissue equivalent proportional 


counter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Sort of indirectly that is 


a spectral --


 DR. BEHLING: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- analysis. Jim, do you -- add 


to that or... 


DR. NETON: No, I think Hans -- Hans has 


addressed the issue. 


 DR. BEHLING: Good. 


DR. NETON: I just -- there's a couple of 


things with neutrons, though, I'd like to point 


out. One I think this issue of sodium 24, that 


doesn't necessarily mean it was an activation 


product in the body. There was actually sodium 


24 in the drinking water. 


DR. MAURO: In the drinking water? 


DR. NETON: Yeah, I think so. That -- that's 


not very good evidence -- 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


DR. NETON: -- at all. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Could be, yeah. 


DR. NETON: And the second issue I think is 


when you were talking about these detection 


limits, you've got to remember you're doing -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

231 

you're generating distributions. And as we've 


talked about many times, when you're generating 


a lognormal distribution, the detection limit 


really is not relevant as long as you're rank 


ordering doing cumulative probability plots, 


you can still pick off the 50th percentile in 


the geometric standard deviation. So whether 


it was 20 or 40 is not really a central issue, 


I don't think. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: If you're doing geometric -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


DR. NETON: -- if you're doing lognormal 


distributions, the detection limit is not 


really relevant. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, these are items of course -- 


DR. NETON: For generating lognormal 


distributions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- that'll come out in the -- 


DR. NETON: We can talk about these -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the exchange --


DR. NETON: -- technical issues, I just wanted 


to point out... 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it just -- I was just struck, 


as you --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

232 

DR. NETON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- went on there that it seemed to 


imply that they had no spectral information and 


it astounded me because I know who some of 


those HPs were there in the early days and I 


was just certain that it existed somewhere. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 DR. BEHLING: Just another comment that I guess 


could have been added in John's presentation 


and that is the issue of the seven workers and 


the five methods were basically derived on the 


basis of NTA film. And I think there's a 


certain paradox to that because in one instance 


we say that NTA film was not reliable to 


monitor people, but at the same time we're 


saying it's good enough to measure neutron-tophoton ratios. So one should also keep that in 


mind when you look at the pedigree or the 


reliability of establishing these five methods 


and deriving from that the neutron-to-photon 


ratio. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Thank you, John. Go 


ahead. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. We're going to move on to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

233 

internal dose, and this sort of presents an 


overview of the issues related to internal 


dose, but we're going to get into a little bit 


more detail in the next few slides. 


I guess the -- from a priority point of view, 


recycled uranium is raising its head again, as 


it always does, as being an issue, the ade-- or 


the ability to fully appreciate what the 


internal exposures may have been to recycled 


uranium. We're talking about thousands of 


workers that processed and handled RU, and 


there are default values used in the site 


profile, and I guess the bottom line is can we 


hang our hat on those ratios -- that is -- and 


I think some work needs to be done and a 


dialogue engaged on whether or not the default 


values -- not -- capture the full distribution 


of recycled uranium and the trace levels of 


plutonium and americium and neptunium in a way 


that accounts for the uncertainties. 


Bear in mind that it really is not until 1988 


when you have alpha spectrometry on neu-- so 


prior to 1988 when we -- get into that right 


now, you've got yourself a situation where you 


really don't have great data, great bioassay 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

234 

data upon which to get a full appreciation of 


what the intakes were of these various 


radionuclides. And so the neutron -- so the 


recycled uranium is one issue. 


But then there are all of these what I guess we 


call special campaigns. As we read through the 


supporting literature we find out that there 


was an awful lot of experimental work going on. 


One of course that was mentioned over and over 


again is the use of uranium-233 as fissile 


material, and its associated uranium-232. We 


also have come across that apparently there 


were -- experimental work being done where 


there was large quantities of cobalt-60, 


carbon-14, yttrium, polonium-210. So what I am 


getting at is that there's a richness of mix of 


radionuclides that have occurred at different 


places at different times that right now we're 


un-- we're not completely convinced that it's 


been aired and the uncertainties aired 


adequately in the TBD. I think this is a 


subject that we need to engage and discuss how 


well are we able to track and reconstruct doses 


to these categories of workers. Can we 


identify these categories of workers that may 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

235 

have experienced these exposures, how extensive 


it was and can we get a handle on it as to -- 


and in many respects it's like trying to trace 


down some of the issues we had when we were 


talking about Mallinckrodt. There were other 


radionuclides. There were other -- that I 


think -- that is not fully captured in the TBD 


and we -- and we'd like to engage NIOSH in a 


conversation regarding that. 


Now, given that you have this uncertainty 


regarding what in fact was the internal 


exposures, we -- you take a close look at what 


was actually done. What is -- what are the 


instructions given to -- to the dose 


reconstructors and how -- how well do those 


instructions hold up. Now when you don't have 


any bioassay data available -- that's the 


question. I mean if you have bioassay data 


available and you can trust it and it's 


complete, great. But when you don't have any 


bioassay data available, that's when you have 


to start to use surrogate approaches. 


Now in the TBD they basically cover three 


different time periods. Say well, from 1943 to 


1946, before there was any bioassay data, what 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

236 

we're going to assume, there's reason to 


believe that a worker may have experienced some 


internal exposure -- entered an area with 


airborne activity, what we're going to do -- 


and on face value this sounds like a very 


reasonable and claimant-favorable approach -- 


for that time period -- we do know that if the 


levels were above a given quantity in terms of 


dpm per cubic meter, respiratory protection was 


used. So you know what -- what's going to be ­

- what's -- their -- decided to do is say what 


we'll assume is that anyone that had a 


potential to be exposed to airborne activity in 


that time frame, '43 to '46, we will assume 


that he experienced exposures whereby the 


distribution of the airborne radioactivity had 


a triangular distribution that went from zero 


to a mode which -- which was the level that was 


required for respiratory protection to twice 


that, and that he went in there without 


respiratory protection. So that was the sort 


of the fall-back position. When we don't have 


any information, we'll just make that 


assumption. 


Then from 1947 to 1952 they changed the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

237 

approach a little bit and they said what we're 


going to do is we'll simply assume that when a 


person does enter an area that -- where he may 


have received some internal exposure, we'll 


assume he's at ten percent of the level that 


you're required to wear respiratory protection. 


And finally, from '53 to '88 -- '88 is an 


important date because that's when they went to 


alpha spectrometry on the urinalysis so you got 


a good handle, but you had to fill it in from 


1953 to '88. What they simply assumed was that 


if a person enters such an area they were at 


the -- ten percent of the allowable limiting 


concentration for either strontium-90 or 


plutonium-239. So this becomes the one-sizefits-all. 


Now -- and I have to say, as a health physicist 


looking at that, say you know, that's a pretty 


conservative set of assumptions to -- you know, 


to come at the problem that way, saying that 


everyone, you know, is -- that had any 


potential to be exposed to airborne activity. 


But then -- then you have to think about it a 


little bit. At that time, when they were 


taking those air samples, were they in a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

238 

position to make a good -- a reliable judgment 


of -- that in fact the levels were at some 


fraction of the allowable limit, especially 


considering the fact that a full appreciation 


of this full array of radionuclides that we're 


dealing with was not disclosed. So were the -- 


here's the question that we need to talk to 


NIOSH about. The data that was available to 


the health physicists in 1943 to 1946 time 


frame, did that put them in a position that 


they had a good control over the situation 


where they knew that in fact -- whether or not 


there was a problem or not, especially when we 


talked about other issues, the breathing zone 


versus general air samples. As you recall, 


there could be a ten-fold difference there. 


So there -- there are issues related to the 


adequacy of the knowledge at the time of the -- 


regarding the air samples to be able to make 


that judgment whether you needed -- whether or 


not we had a problem in an area or not. 


 Now what confounds this further, and this is 


item number two under SC&A comments, is 


confirmation of the adequacy of these 


assumptions is very limited because there was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

239 

abso-- there was no bioassay program from '43 


to '46, according to the TBD and the supporting 


literature. Bioassay started for plutonium in 


'46, for uranium and fission products in '47, 


and by late 1960 there were -- they were -- 


they were doing some more advanced bioassay 


studies, but it wasn't until '83 -- not '84, 


'83 -- that we had a alpha spec. So the 


question becomes does this one size fit all for 


a way of filling in this incredible gap. For 


internal exposure, is it adequate. And that's 


a question that we'd like to discuss with -- 


with NIOSH. 


This is the last slide. There are a number of 


other issues that -- that we call the lesser 


issues, but nevertheless issues that we don't 


want to lose track of. One is something that 


we talk about quite a bit that might right now 


have been solved. We found when we read the 


TBD that there was some ambiguity on the 


instructions on how do you interpret the data 


that you have, the bioassay -- not bioassay, 


the film badge data or the TLD data. How do 


you assign uncertainties. And this goes back 


to discussions that Kathy Behling and Hans had 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

240 

regarding confusion, because in many cases we 


found -- I use the word impenetrable, the 


information is so complex that we fou-- we are 


finding that the folks that are actually doing 


the dose reconstructions are very often 


confused. But now that we have the workbooks, 


we think a lot -- that might -- the problem 


might have gone away. 


There are these oth-- there -- there are issues 


that we -- we notice that -- not -- there was 


not a great deal of attention given to 


extremity dose, skin dose, gonad, breast, to 


the -- you know, the beta emitters and the weak 


photons in the TBD. We'd like to engage a 


little bit more and learn a little bit more 


about how you deal with that. 


There was also -- we noticed that for 


environmental exposure -- this was an 


interesting observation, but it's not -- I 


don't think it has a big effect on doses. And 


you -- visualize you've got these emissions 


coming from the various release points in the 


plant and you've got workers -- unmonitored 


workers outdoors. And you want to try to put 


an upper bound on the exposures that those 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

241 

workers may have experienced. Well, what they 


use is they took the source term information 


that I believe came out of some of the dose 


reconstruction work and they applied 


atmospheric dispersion factors using a computer 


program called RATCHET, which is a very good 


program and it does what's called puff 


invection modeling. But we noticed that they 


didn't use the puff invection feature. They 


just used as average annual (unintelligible). 


So we -- we think that there's room for 


improvement on how to do that kind of analysis. 


And finally -- and I don't want to give it 


short rift (sic), but I realize I'm taking up a 


lot of time, we felt that there's more analysis 


-- more discussion is needed of exposures 


associated with the tank farms. More 


discussion is needed with regard to exposures 


during D and D operations, which was quite 


extensive. And finally, there were an awful 


lot of incidents that occurred, and there 


really is very little -- there's guidance in -- 


and this is a recurring theme. You know, right 


now we're depending on the CATI interviews to 


lead us toward whether or not a given worker 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

242 

may have experienced an exposure from an 


incident. It seems that a little bit -- more 


needs to be said for guidance to the dose 


reconstructor regarding incidents and making 


sure that -- that they don't miss an exposure 


from an incident. 


And I think that concludes my presentation. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, John. Board 


members, do you have questions for John at this 


time? Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Just a couple of comments rather 


than questions. Thank you, John, for a very 


good presentation on an extremely weighty site 


profile. It is a hard document to get through, 


and I'm pleased to see that you've refined the 


issues to things that I think probably you and 


NIOSH can ultimately work down to only one or 


two major issues for addressing. It strikes me 


that the work that both NIOSH and you are doing 


in this regard is based on the work of the men 


and women who established health physics 


programs at this site during those early years, 


and were -- I think we're fortunate at the 


Hanford site to have had a continuum of record-


keeping that made it possible for a depth of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

243 

information that isn't perhaps available on all 


other sites to be accessible to you. 


I don't want personally to comment on any of 


these issues until after there has been more of 


a dialogue between NIOSH and SC&A. This is the 


first time I have seen this -- this 


information. I don't even have the hard copy 


yet. I assume we will get hard copies. Right? 


DR. MAURO: Of the matrix or of the report? 


 MS. MUNN: No, we have the matrix. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, the -- the -- I put 20 copies 


out. I should have put out more. They're --


they're all -- they're all gone. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


DR. MAURO: I have -- we can make up more. 


 MS. MUNN: Fine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we got copies, did 


we? 


 MS. MUNN: Huh-uh. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we need to get copies. 


Okay, thank you. 


Let's see, Jim, do you have any comments at 


this time you want to make on -- 


DR. NETON: No, I'd like to thank John for a 


very -- very concise presentation. You know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

244 

we -- I'm glad that we've been able to condense 


a 290-page review down into something that's a 


little more digestible. We look forward to 


working with -- with SC&A on this. We have 


just seen these issues raised today. I mean we 


knew they were in there, but they were in the 


291 pages and I'm glad we're focusing on these 


and, through the workgroup process, I assume 


that we'll get together and come to some 


resolution. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew, can you inform us on -- 


timetable-wise, what we're -- where we need to 


be on this in terms of target times? 


 DR. WADE: Well, I think the driver is that, 


you know, we've had -- this is one of the first 


reviews we've commissioned. I think it's -- 


it's been in the process of getting to the 


Board, so I think there's an urgency that comes 


from that. I know of no other urgency, but I 


think it's important that we resolve these 


issues as quickly as possible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm trying to get a feel for the 


extent to which -- in the context of the 


Pacific Proving Grounds SEC and the Rocky Flats 


SEC, that we'll be in a position to -- to act 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

245 

on this in the next couple of months. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Y-12 of course, yes. 


 DR. WADE: I think we need to -- from my 


perspective, I think we need to get NIOSH and 


SC&A together, the sooner the better, to try 


and deal with these issues. I assume we're 


going to have a Board member or two present -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- when that happens. I think that 


would probably grow into a working group, so 


you know, I think there are things we can do. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that would lead into my 


next que-- I mean this is not really a Hanford 


question, but it's a -- just a question about 


the upcoming workload and -- for -- for NIOSH, 


for SC&A, as well as the workgroup -- Board. 


I'm thinking about Rocky Flats, Y-12 and PPG. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's what I just mentioned. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And you know, a couple things 


that I -- I wanted to ask about -- we're in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

246 

middle of the Y-12 site profile review and we 


were talking on the side here about this CD 


with the 6,000 pages, and I guess the question 


that arises in our mind for -- with the limited 


time frame coming up or -- or at least we're 


trying to come to some conclusions as quick as 


we can on this, we -- we were just having a 


discussion of how best to proceed with 


reviewing the material on that -- on that CD. 


I guess the concern is that it may take NIOSH 


several weeks to -- to digest this, get it in a 


database format and then turn it over to SC&A. 


So I guess I just wanted to maybe discuss that 


as a -- it could be a separate task entirely 


that -- that we might want SC&A to, you know, 


sort of be gleaning this data in parallel with 


-- with NIOSH instead of in series, you know. 


So it's just something that came up, and the 


other thing that we haven't really yet -- we 


mentioned that NIOSH should get together with 


DTRA and -- and discuss the PPG issue. We did 


ask that Board members be involved. I wonder 


if we need to have an SC&A presence there, too, 


or -- or are we going to task SC&A with 


assisting us in that review. And that doesn't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

247 

seem like it would be a lengthy item, but it 


could be a time-sensitive item, certainly, and 


it may involve -- I hope not, but it may 


involve our classi-- you know, classifying 


groupings or meetings or whatever, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- just -- just a few -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, well --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- things to think about. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- for now, let's cogitate on 


that. We can revisit it tomorrow if you want 


formal action. But the point is that there are 


a number of issues that are quite pressing. It 


may be three or four weeks before NIOSH has a 


chance even to react to this in a formal way. 


I'm just trying to get a feel for whether or 


not we need to formalize any process for the 


Board at this point until that occurs, and then 


perhaps at our phone meeting see where they are 


on that and determine whether we need to set up 


a workgroup at that point. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I gue--


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think Lew said it best, 


that -- that -- let NIOSH and SC&A talk, and 


then it may -- it eventually will evolve into a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

248 

workgroup function I think. Right? 


 DR. WADE: I would like to think that it'd be 


an interaction. Now whether you want that 


interaction to take place with a Board member 


present on the phone call, that's your choice. 


But I think there's an opportunity to start to 


make some ground on the Hanford issues and I'd 


like to see us take that opportunity. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think based on past experience, 


the Board's preference is to at least have 


someone present at these, and we can so assign, 


if we know when -- when the exchanges will take 


place. And then, again, as has been the 


process to copy the Board on e-mail exchanges 


that occur on issues of this type. Is that 


suitable? 


 DR. WADE: It's fine for me. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Would it be best to identify a Board 


member now or do we want to do that -- think 


about that this evening and talk about it 


tomorrow? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's talk about it tomorrow. 


 DR. WADE: We have some new members, too, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, an opportunity to chat with 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

249 

different ones. Okay. 


DR. NETON: I'd like to suggest -- in the past 


what we've done is to provide NIOSH a chance to 


react to these -- you know, these more refined 


comments and -- and maybe just engage in a 


technical discussion where need be with SC&A -- 


I mean a Board member would certainly be 


invited to attend, but not necessarily present 


because these would be at a sort of -- fairly 


detailed technical level. As John was talking 


today I could see we're going to get down into 


the weeds on these issues and -- and SC&A in 


the past has been pretty good about preparing 


minutes of those discussions that would be 


available to the Board. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. NETON: And then at least we could get some 


rough draft responses from NIOSH fleshed out 


and available for further discussion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. That certainly has worked 


well in the past, and no reason not to continue 


that -- that mode of operation. It doesn't 


preclude these early exchanges just between the 


two of you. 


 DR. WADE: And so then we might have some 

250 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

interaction between NIOSH and SC&A on these 


issues to try and -- a clarifying call, the 


first step, and we would -- we would ask SC&A 


then to see that there was a transcript of 


those interactions and a summary provided to 


the Board. I think that gives us -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: -- a step we can take. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Good. Okay. We're going to go 


ahead and take a break at this time. We have a 


15-minute break scheduled and then we will 


resume at that point. Thank you. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:20 p.m. 


to 3:40 p.m.) 


REPORT FROM SC&A ON SEC TASK
 

DR. ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A


 DR. ZIEMER: We are ready to proceed in the 


next item on our agenda. Now if -- if you 


would look at your agenda a moment, you'll 


notice that there is an item called "Procedures 


for Board Evaluation of SEC Petitions", and 


then you'll see after that "Report from SCA on 


an SEC Task". What the Board would like to do 


is reverse the order of those two. The Board 


would like to hear the SE-- or hear the SC&A 


report before it holds its own discussion on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

251 

the SEC procedure so that we can use the SCA -- 


don't you like these acronyms -- so we can use 


the SCA information to inform our discussion of 


our own SEC procedures. 


So what that amounts to is the following, that 


-- the Board has recently developed what we 


call Task Five, which is a newer task for our 


contractor which allows our contractor to get 


involved in assisting us in various aspects of 


Special Exposure Cohort reviews. 


 Under that task there were two initial subtasks 


that were assigned to the contractor. The 


first of those, subtask one, was to ask the 


contractor to review the procedures used by 


NIOSH and by NIOSH's contractor, ORAU, on the 


SEC evaluation process. So we have that report 


that we've received from SEC (sic). And Board 


members, that -- the report itself -- dated 


November 23rd, and there is a copy in your 


notebook. 


And then subtask two where we asked the 


contractor to give us its thoughts on how the 


Board itself should proceed in handling SEC 


petitions, what our procedures should be. And 


of course parallel to that you recognize that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

252 

the Board has had its own working group that 


has developed some SEC criteria by which we 


will evaluate SEC petitions. So these things 


have been going on simultaneously. That 


subtask two report we received on November -- 


or it was dated November 30th, so Board members 


have had this also for several weeks, and a 


copy is in the notebook. And I believe copies 


of all of these are also on the table. 


Dr. Makhijani from SC&A is going to give us a 


presentation now on both the subtask one and 


subtask two findings of our contractor, so 


Arjun... 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. I'll go 


through the evaluation of NIOSH procedures 


first. Of course we looked at the rule, 42 CFR 


83, and the main procedure's in OCAS PR-004. 


There are a couple of forms, Form A and Form B, 


which prospective petitioners would use to file 


the petitions. We reviewed those, and the 


procedure makes reference to using OCAS IG-001 


and 2, which are the external and internal dose 


procedures for use in SEC petition evaluation. 


So those were the basic documents that we 


reviewed. The OCAS documents were -- 001 and 2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

253 

-- just mainly we relied on the prior 


evaluations. 


Let's see, okay. So some strengths were noted 


for the procedures. There is a logical, stepby-step procedure that is set forth by NIOSH, 


and it allows NIOSH to divide the proposed 


class into sub-classes, and that has happened 


before. It allows, in the more easy cases, 


when SECs are to be designated for a certain 


sub-class at least to be early designated, as 


happened at Mallinckrodt, for instance, 


provides some useful examples. And then it 


also provides for a dose reconstruction for 


non-SEC cancers. 


One of the bigger findings was that it doesn't 


-- the NIOSH procedures currently don't contain 


detailed guidance on how to calculate maximum 


dose. I noticed that Dr. Neton made some 


reference to this earlier in his presentation 


on Pacific Proving Grounds. This -- this 


became something of an item in Iowa, to which 


Dr. Neton also made reference this morning. 


It's because -- we're calculating a maximum 


dose with plausible assumptions, and those 


terms need to be defined in terms of -- not in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

254 

terms of actually putting numbers on a maximum 


dose, which would vary from site to site and 


job type to job type and so on, but defining 


some criteria where there -- where maximum 


doses might be considered reasonable so that 


the maximum doses don't become arbitrary. And 


we believe that some -- some guidelines along 


the lines of actually discussing job 


categories, evaluation of data integrity, how 


dose estimation for unmonitored workers might 


work -- this might be helpful in defining the 


limits for what might be considered, you know, 


a scientifically reliable maximum dose rather 


than an arbitrarily high maximum dose. 


One of the most important and difficult points 


was what is the relationship of 42 CFR 83 under 


which maximum doses are calculated with 


plausible assumptions to the highest doses 


under worst-case assumptions under 42 CFR 82. 


Now under the individual dose rule, 42 CFR 82, 


the highest doses are not supposed to involve 


uncertainty. And the way we understand that is 


when NIOSH declares that a certain number is, 


under scientifically-reasonable worst-case 


assumptions, regarded as a maximum dose, that ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

255 

- that that is the maximum dose, which is used 


only for denial. 


Under 42 CFR 83, if an SEC petition is denied 


on the ground that maximum dose with plausible 


assumptions can be calculated, that dose could 


be used to compensate people. And the rule is 


silent and -- and the guidelines are also 


silent on the question of the relationship 


between these two kinds of maximum dose. And 


we believe that because the maximum dose under 


42 CFR 83 methods could be used to compensate, 


as well as deny, that should not wind up being 


higher than the highest worst-case assumption 


dose that will involve no uncertainty under 42 


CFR 83. 


That -- we've suggested that an uncertainty 


which requires that the worst-case dose under 


42 CFR 82 always be higher than the maximum 


dose under 42 CFR 83 would clarify what is now 


a problem, at least in theory. And this did 


come up, indirectly but not in a specific 


example, at Mallinckrodt where we did raise the 


issue in a site profile review, that some of 


these doses had the potential to wind up being 


higher than calculated worst-case doses for -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

256 

for that site. 


This was a theme regarding survivor claimants 


that came up in our review of interview 


procedures under 42 CFR 83. Now NIOSH does 


have provision for working with petitioners 


quite extensively and helping them prepare the 


petition so that they qualify after a petition 


is submitted. But we continue to feel that 


survivor claimants may have great difficult-- 


who want to become petitioners or -- or 


survivors who are not claimants who may want to 


become petitioners, may have a particularly 


difficult time and -- and some -- to level the 


playing field, some special assistance does 


need to be provided for in terms of incidents, 


in terms of working conditions of the plant, 


perhaps explaining the site profiles and -- and 


things like that to prospective petitioners. 


And -- and you know, post-petition there is 


assistance, and we haven't evaluated any 


detailed case study on that, but pre-petition 


at least some -- some more level playing field 


would appear to be called for for survivor 


claimants who want to become petitioners. 


We listed some other concerns. Currently NIOSH 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

257 

does provide for a interview with petitioners, 


but it's not required as part of the 


guidelines, and we think that a detailed 


interview with the -- with at least one of the 


petitioners is very important and should be 


required as part of the guidelines. It might 


obviate misunderstandings and difficulties and 


-- and if -- if an SEC petition is denied, it 


might make it easier for the petitioner to 


understand the basis of it if an interview had 


been conducted, and NIOSH might also receive 


more clarity as to where the petitioners were 


coming from in that regard. 


There -- there is the -- the guidelines, as 


well as the rule, do say that the -- some data 


from the site should be used as a starting 


point, and provide some of the basis for -- for 


maximum dose estimation, or dose estimation, 


with sufficient accuracy. But this is -- how 


much is adequate, what kind of data can be used 


from other sites, how it would be married, I 


think -- I think -- we think that the 


guidelines could use some examples, at least, 


based on -- on -- on the work that NIOSH has 


done so that it's a little more clear. We 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

258 

realize that the rule was written 


prospectively, but now there's -- there's a 


great deal of experience with SEC evaluation, 


so many of these things are not necessarily 


criticisms of the guidelines as they were 


issued when they were issued, but with -- with 


some hindsight, perhaps the process might be 


smoother if -- if the guidelines did -- did 


have some clarification based on the experience 


that had been gained. 


 The last issue related to health endangerment. 


This came up this morning in regard to the 


workers who worked less than 250 days. The 


example that's in the rule and in the 


guidelines in regard to the external 


criticality accidents certainly provides an 


example of where there would be an endangerment 


in regard to an incident. There's no 


corresponding example for internal dose. 


Certainly there have been circumstances at 


various sites like Mallinckrodt and others 


where one might imagine doses -- and one can 


calculate doses based on available data, I 


believe -- in periods shorter than 250 days 


that might be comparable in health endangerment 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

259 

to other places where NIOSH has declared health 


endangered for more than 250 days of work. And 


I think in the case of internal dose, the 


guidelines are rather silent, and -- and there 


is no corresponding clarification about what 


the process is for people who are primarily 


exposed to internal dose and how to proceed for 


workers who worked for less than 250 days. 


And then we have some suggestions for 


improvement that are based primarily on -- on 


the findings, which I won't go through. You 


can look at the list, and they correspond to 


the findings I've just gone through. 


So that's the review of the guidelines, so 


perhaps --


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's pause a minute and see if 


any of the Board members have questions or 


comments on this material. 


 (No responses) 


Okay, let's proceed. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Jim -- Jim 


might have a comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Jim, please. 


DR. NETON: Are we ready? I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure, yeah, go ahead. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

260 

DR. NETON: Okay. I just wanted to make a 


comment on -- I think it was maybe your first 


slide, Arjun, or the second one, I'm not sure ­

- but it has to do with this maximum dose used 


to compensate or deny. This has been sort of 


an ongoing misunderstanding or miscommunication 


I think we've been having, and I'd like to 


maybe one more time try to address the issue 


and see if we can come to some -- some 


clarification on this. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Slide four -- four or five maybe. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


DR. NETON: I don't have the presentation. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go back -- let's see, strengths -- 


there you go. 


DR. NETON: I hope I can do justice to this, 


but let me see if I can explain what I think 


Arjun is saying and then what we -- our 


position is. 42 CFR 83 allow for maximum -- it 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

261 

establishes the fact that we need to be able to 


establish a maximum dose with plausible 


assumptions in order to deny a class. If we 


can -- if we can establish a maximum dose under 


plausible circumstances, then the class could 


be denied. That would be a basis for denying 


the class. That's the way the regulation 


reads, at least in our mind. 


Now, if that's the case, that does not mean 


that when we -- if the -- if the class were 


denied, that we would necessarily use that 


maximum dose to do dose reconstructions under 


42 CFR 82. We're not required to. That would 


just be a bounding, plausible analysis to 


demonstrate that yes, we can indeed put some 


plausible upper limit. 


When it comes to doing dose reconstructions, if 


there is a more refined method available at the 


time or becomes available, we can refine it and 


use a better estimate. In some situations, 


though, it may be that we will have no 


additional information. The maximum plausible 


dose that was used to deny the class will be-- 


could become the best estimate. It's no longer 


at that point a maximum dose. It's the best 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

262 

estimate that we ever feel that we could come 


up with. 


So I think that might clear up some confusion 


because it -- they're two totally different 


concepts. The maximum plausible dose for SEC 


petition analysis is very different than the 


maximum dose that we use in the efficiency 


process to deny cases. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Jim, I thought that Arjun was 


suggesting that when you went back and did the 


actual dose reconstruction you might come up 


with yet a higher number. Was that the ca-- 


no. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Dr. Ziemer, the point of -- of 


this finding is that whatever the terminology, 


when you go back to 42 CFR 82, after denying a 


petition, and you've developed a method -- 


presuming you don't have more information and 


so on -- and we take the case of Mallinckrodt. 


A certain plausible dose method was developed, 


and if that had been denied and you didn't have 


more information, you would then have proceeded 


to calculate doses by that method to compensate 


or deny people, depending on POC. 


Now the concern here is that that number -- now 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

263 

at Mallinckrodt some cases had actually been 


denied using a different approach that was 


called highest dose with worst-case 


assumptions. Now at that point it should not 


be the doses that are being used to compensate 


people -- to deny people should have been less 


than doses that are being used to compensate 


people. And the point of this comment is that 


there should be some restriction in going from 


the SEC rule after denial as to how those cases 


are handled. And we do recognize that there's 


a distinction between the terms. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


it's more of a having to go back to those cases 


and reassess (unintelligible) -- 


DR. NETON: Well -- well, right, but I mean -- 


I think what -- this -- this could happen very 


frequently where we would use worst-case 


assumptions to deny cases under 42 CFR 82 


because it's expeditious and it gives the 


claimants an answer fairly quickly, while we're 


continuing to do more research to refine our 


ability to do dose reconstructions. At the end 


of the day, if NIOSH finds no more information 


other than that worst-case assumption and it's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

264 

a plausible worst-case assumption, it could in 


effect then become the best estimate for those 


dose reconstructions and then could be used to 


compensate cases. It's no longer a worst-case 


assumption; it's our best estimate. 


There's sort of a nomenclature issue here, I 


think. Our -- 42 CFR 82 allows us to do best 


estimates, and if the best estimate is a worst-


case assumption, it -- that's what it is. So 


it depends on how much research we can 


accomplish --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


I think we're really there, from 


(unintelligible). 


DR. NETON: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


I mean I think, you know, it's the question of 


if you end up using the maximum plausible dose 


to actually -- you -- you can't do any better 


estimate --


DR. NETON: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and you have to apply it, and 


you look back and you say oh, these previous 


cases we used a maximum but it wasn't as high 


as this maximum now, then you have to -- you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

265 

know, so --


DR. NETON: Wait, wait, wait --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think that's what Arjun's 


saying, isn't it, that you have to go back and 


reassess those cases if they were denied based 


on --


DR. NETON: A maximum plausible -- a maximum 


plausible dose under the SEC process is totally 


different from the maximum plausible dose under 


42 CFR 82, or could be. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


DR. NETON: It could be the same --


 DR. ZIEMER: But it could be the same -- 


DR. NETON: -- but (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the case you mentioned. 


DR. NETON: Yeah, all we have to do is 


establish that a maximum plausible for SEC 


petitions is -- can be done. But when we go to 


do the analysis, we don't -- we would do a best 


estimate. If the best estimate is equal to the 


maximum plausible estimate, then it -- it's 


totally legitimate within the requirements of 


42 CFR 82 to use that. So I don't see that 


there is a disconnect. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: (Off microphone) 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

266 

(Unintelligible) (on microphone) to clarify the 


comment. Under 42 CFR 82, as I understand it, 


there's a certain kind of dose which is to be 


used only for denial. That's the kind of dose, 


when you wind up above 50 percent, NIOSH and 


ORAU actually go back and recalculate a better 


estimate, if they can. And the worst-case 


assumptions efficiency procedure is used only 


for denial. 


This finding is directed only at that kind of 


dose, that that kind of dose, which is -- which 


it is said in the rule will not involve 


uncertainty -- should truly be the highest 


number you could come up with under any dose 


reconstruction procedure because it's the 


highest dose that is promised to the public 


will not involve uncertainty. I don't 


understand how you can say that we calculated a 


highest dose that will not involve uncertainty, 


and then, by another procedure under the same 


program, come up with another number that's 


bigger. 


DR. NETON: Okay. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's -- that's the problem 


I'm having. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

267

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, I underst--


DR. NETON: I understand. You're actually 


arguing the reverse, which is if we've denied 


cases based on maximum plausible, then we 


should not have a higher maximum plausible for 


SEC, and I agree with that. I'm sorry for -- 


if I was the only dense one in the audience, 


but I'm glad (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's kind of a terminology issue, 


really. 


DR. NETON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Arjun's point, while it stands on 


its own strength intellectually, is also of 


great value for us to hear what he's saying as 


it relates to our ability to communicate 


consistently with people. 


DR. NETON: I apologi--


 MR. GRIFFON: Well said. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, we'll proceed 


with the subtask two -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I have a --

 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm sorry. Jim, please. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- and doing that, and -- first of 

all, I thought your review of these procedures 


was -- was helpful and I do sort of want to go 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

268 

through a couple of the concerns and so forth 


because I think we're -- I'm not sure we need 


more (unintelligible) and I think we all are in 


the process of addressing some of them, and I 


think we need to acknowledge that. And one is 


the issue of the 250 days, and I think -- as we 


discussed, and I think coming out of what we're 


doing with Pacific Proving Grounds I think 


we'll have more clarification on how to do deal 


with that in both -- there's some regula-- 


legal, regulatory -- you know, regulation-


related issues as well as sort of how we -- 


sort of practical way of addressing certain 


situations where -- where that comes -- may 


come up and -- and so -- but I do think it -- 


it was helpful. 


The one comment I'd like to hear back from 


either Larry or Jim is this -- it's other -- 


under the other major concerns slide was the 


last point, which was no procedures on 


determining the breadth of the class when NIOSH 


finds that it cannot reconstruct a claimant's 


dose. It -- and I've just been trying to 


understand how you -- I mean I -- I think -- 


comments that there were no written procedures. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

269 

There's nothing in place yet. I think you're 


doing it, just -- you know, evaluating these 


petitions and so forth and just sort of your 


response is well, should we try to formalize 


that in some ways that -- as a guideline or -- 


I -- you --


DR. NETON: Yeah. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- you know, and to me, the other 


(unintelligible) corollary to that is this 


whole issue of how do we divide up a proposed 


SEC into groups that can be constructed -- 


reconstructed and those that can't, and there's 


sort of this class definition thing, which I -- 


I also think that you're wrestling with, but -- 


and you've never -- you've sort of accepted -- 


you sort of present this and we -- we never 


really talk much about the rest of the universe 


there, the years you're not presenting to us or 


-- or groups and so forth and -- and -- 


DR. NETON: I agree. For the record, I -- I do 


agree, there's no procedure for determining the 


breadth of the class. But I think, 


operationally, this is -- this is very much 


driven by the availability of the data. The 


data speak for themselves, and how one would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

270 

proceduralize that is -- would be difficult for 


me to envision. I mean we could say exactly 


that sort of thing. But you know, if you -- if 


you have a class of workers who worked the 


third shift and they walked around the plant 


and had no monitoring data and had similar 


exposures to the people on the second shift, 


then that sort of just funnels itself right 


into that definition. The fact of the matter 


is, we rarely have that type of a situation, 


and you start looking at classes of workers who 


may have been all over the plant and you can't 


necessarily put them in time and space 


anywhere. I'm not sure how one would -- would 


narrow it any better, other than a detailed 


analysis of what we have in our hands at the 


time. 


 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


I thought, but now I'm really in trouble 'cause 


I've invoked legal counsel. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, I -- I just wanted to 


remind you --


 DR. MELIUS: Or provoked, I guess is... 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- NIOSH has also limited 


what they present to you by what the petition 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 -- 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

271 

is, so years you're not seeing are because 


they're years that were not petitioned upon. 


 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) Yeah, 


(unintelligible) --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So if you get a Y-12 


petition for ten years, eventually the Board 


will get an SEC response from NIOSH on those 


ten years, but not the 20 that followed it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But we also have cases where NIOSH 


initiates the class based on their own findings 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and I think this may be -- 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Off microphone) Jim's 


response (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if you find a group, I think 


the issue is how do you know that you've 


encompassed the right subset or subsets to -- 


to define the class. And sort of intuitively 


you are doing something, and I guess Jim may be 


asking does that need to be codified in some 


way, or do you just describe what it is you do 


to find -- I guess that's (off microphone) 


(unintelligible) --


DR. NETON: We could certainly attempt to do 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

272 

that. I mean --


 DR. MELIUS: What I would suggest would -- you 


know, think of it as a suggestion and -- is 


that you include a step in this process that, 


after you've done or -- you know, done a lot of 


the evaluation, you understand what the 


critical datasets and so forth, you sort of 


examine that and say what -- what does this say 


about who should be included, not included, and 


are there other groups that the same facts 


apply to (unintelligible) the same 


circumstances apply to 'cause why -- 'cause 


they're going to get -- end up in the SEC class 


one way or the other. They're -- they're going 


to end up -- we shouldn't make them have to 


petition 'cause you're going to identify them 


when you go to reconstruct their doses, 


presumably, and we'd have to go through the 


whole process again. It seems to me it would 


be -- could be -- it could be more efficient to 


sort of do it in one step and... 


DR. NETON: I think, though, that to a large 


extent the draft guidelines put together by the 


working group are going to help with that 


because we're now -- we're now focused on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

273 

looking at not only what was monitored and who 


was monitored, but what was not monitored. 
I 


mean we're required now to go back and look at 


all these, as John called, exotic -- I'll call 


ancillary nuclides of exposure and say well, 


you know, there was also plutonium, americium, 


curium, and were -- were there monitoring 


programs in those areas. And then we would 


define -- it -- it's almost -- ends up being 


defined then by nuclide type, which is not 


really helpful, but then you have to figure out 


what work classes would fall into exposures for 


those things. 


 The good thing is right now we're investigating 


Calutron/Cyclotron operators at Y-12. You 


know, they were exposed to isotopes other than 


uranium, and so we're -- the procedures that 


the workgroup put together are funneling us 


towards that. I think that'll be helpful. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and again, not trying to -- 


think we should try to make unnecessary work, 


but the data's all in front of us. We're 


evaluating it. Let's take advantage of that 


time when we're discussing it to decide what 


more needs to be done so that way we don't have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

274 

to come back to it two years later or whatever. 


I think that would worth thinking about. 


DR. NETON: I totally agree. I think, you 


know, having done this a few times now, we have 


a lot more knowledge as to -- as to what we're 


doing and what's available, and -- 


 DR. WADE: And just a comment for the record, 


this issue of who's to be included and who's 


not to be included, I think we have to consider 


inviting into the discussion our colleagues 


from DOL who often are left with making these 


decisions once the Board has made a 


recommendation and the Secretary a 


recommendation. So I think there is -- there 


are many voices to be heard for us to do this 


right. I don't think we started out doing it 


perfectly right, but that doesn't make us bad 


people. But I think we can evolve the process 


as we go. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Okay, thank you. Arjun, if 


you'll continue, please. 


(Pause) 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So this was the second report. 


This -- this really has two parts. One -- one 


was based on what had happened with the review 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

275 

SEC petitions, what we might suggest as Board 


procedures, and the second was what we might 


suggest for our own procedures. This was 


subtask two, which you also commissioned. 


For the Board procedures, we suggested that we 


think about it in three phases, and this is I 


think fairly -- has a fair degree of overlap 


with what the Board working group did, but it 


sets it forth in kind of a time frame that may 


be a little bit different. The phase one would 


be preliminary steps taken immediately after 


NIOSH qualifies a petition for evaluation. And 


phase two would be during the time that NIOSH 


is actually evaluating the petition. And phase 


three would be after NIOSH has submitted an 


evaluation to the Board for consideration. 


Okay. So the most important part of phase one 


was that we thought that it might be helpful if 


NIOSH would start with some implicit evaluation 


plan when it begins evaluating the petition. 


mean it's got a certain amount of data there in 


front of it, documents, perhaps dose 


reconstructions that are relevant. And if 


NIOSH could submit a plan, you know, to present 


the documents and how it is proceeding to 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

276 

evaluate the petition at about the time it 


begins to evaluate itself the petition, the 


Board, through a working group, could begin 


that process to identify the issues. And that 


would make the process of evaluation of the 


petition involve the Board more closely, rather 


than having a completed product presented to 


the Board after the evaluation is complete. 


And doing that review by the Board serially and 


-- that would cut down the time and also 


there'd be a greater likelihood that all of the 


relevant issues would be put on the table 


during the process of NIOSH evaluation of its 


petition. But that of course depends -- the 


key step is that when NIOSH begins its own 


evaluation that a relatively rich plan that it 


itself is following, together with the 


documentation, is -- is supplied to the Board. 


So phase two -- this derives a lot from -- from 


the experience that we had with Mallinckrodt 


which went on for quite a long time, and -- and 


partly is suggested to compress that procedure. 


The dose -- example dose reconstructions that 


would illustrate the issues would be defined 


and provided. NIOSH would do them itself. The 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

277 

Board would review the material. And the 


overall goal of this step would be to ensure -- 


would be focused on these example dose 


reconstructions to ensure that the issues that 


are relevant to the feasibility of dose 


reconstruction would -- with sufficient 


accuracy would be examined in depth so that 


NIOSH, as well as the Board, could -- could 


arrive at a conclusion whether -- as to -- as 


to the feasibility. 


Then in phase three, the phase three is 


relatively straightforward. It's spelled out 


in 42 CFR 83 quite well, and -- and the Board 


has already been following this: to hear from 


NIOSH, to hear from the petitioners, to hear 


from others and consider all the different 


points of view and decide whether a further 


review is needed or whether you can take 


action. So the phase three part of it is -- is 


not at all new, whereas the other two phases 


would be basically drawn on the experience of 


what the Board has done in the past year to 


review SEC petitions. 


So that -- I don't know if you want me to pause 


here or just go on through to the end. We also 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

278 

suggested draft procedures for the Board 


contractor, and they're spelled out in quite a 


bit of detail, but basically it would be to 


review the petition and associated documents 


and to determine what kinds of partial dose 


reconstructions would be needed in order to 


clarify the issues regarding feasibility of 


dose reconstruction. We propose to interview 


site experts and at least one of the 


petitioners as a required part of the 


evaluation process. If there is a full -- 


these steps involve the evaluation after NIOSH 


has submitted an -- its own SEC petition 


evaluation, if SC&A or the contractor is asked 


to review the whole evaluation that NIOSH has 


done, this would be -- it would be a rather 


lengthy and detailed process that would involve 


these interviews that would involve looking at 


dose reconstructions and of course working 


under the direction of the Board and the 


working group to assess the representativeness 


of the data, the adequacy, validity and to see 


whether the technical issues that had been 


raised in regard to feasibility have been 


satisfactorily assessed. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

279 

Now the Board did ask us to examine what we 


might do when there is a site profile and a 


site profile review and those minimum things 


are -- are mentioned here. When there's --


when there's no site profile review, we would 


not propose to undertake a site profile review 


as part of an SEC petition process. It would 


be more targeted review of the site profile 


that was relevant only for those issues in 


regard to maximum dose reconstruction. I think 


this has been exemplified by some of our 


presentations yesterday and today where we did 


make an effort to sort out those issues -- 


while they may be significant for dose 


reconstruction -- but we thought can be 


resolved. Like, for instance, the geometry -- 


the geometry of the workplace in relation to 


the badge when it is known. This is -- this is 


something that can be done and doesn't rise to 


the level of whether dose reconstruction is 


feasible, but merely how it should be done. 


Whereas there were other issues that have been 


raised in regard to Rocky Flats and Y-12 that 


would need to be resolved to determine the 


feasibility. So we would sort those out and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

280 

focus only on those issues where feasibility 


was involved and nothing else. Of course we 


would not be dealing with minimum or -- or best 


case doses at that stage, but just the 


feasibility. 


And similarly when there's no site profile, 


then we would perform a focused review of the 


conditions at the site -- radionuclides, job 


types and so on -- with the same targeted idea, 


that what is relevant for maximum dose 


reconstruction under plausible assumptions for 


that site. 


There's a little bit of a complication that -- 


it's not really discussed at length, in the 


sense that these procedures don't cover what 


might happen in regard to drawing data from 


other sites. We've been silent on that. NIOSH 


does use that, and we would just follow in our 


evaluations what NIOSH had done, not -- 


presumably not be initiating our own 


investigations on other sites. 


In regard to partial reviews, there is 


provision in the task order for partial 


reviews. I imagine that that would happen in 


what I described as phase two of the Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

281 

procedure. Should the Board choose to ask for 


some support from your contractor, then you 


would define the issues during the process of 


NIOSH evaluation of the petition and we would 


work along with you on those issues, as we did 


at Mallinckrodt and Iowa, and as we are doing 


in -- so far in the case of Y-12 and Rocky 


Flats. 


That simply gives you the review preparation 


team. 


 DR. WADE: Just to expand on what Arjun said, 


part of the task we put in place with SC&A 


allows for the Board to task SC&A with 


assisting it in a petition evaluation review. 


And Arjun talked about the two types, sort of a 


full review and then this -- this task-


specific. So -- I mean all of the mechanisms 


are available to you now to use as you might 


like, and I think Arjun made that fairly clear 


in his comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, questions or comments, Board 


members, on this -- okay, Dr. Melius. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yes, I would just offer up that I 


think that, given the time frame for trying to 


address these, that -- that I think we possibly 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

282 

want to avoid the complete reviews, that -- 


that -- you know, the partial review -- and I ­

- I hate to call it partial, I'd rather call it 


targeted or something that doesn't 


(unintelligible) --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) focus (unintelligible). 


 DR. MELIUS: -- for the focused review that we 


-- would be more appropriate because -- 


particularly where there's been a site profile 


review. I think when there's no site profile 


review, then I think this becomes lengthier 


just -- you know, particularly for a large 


site. Now for a small site or something, or -- 


not a -- a less complicated site, that may be 


different. But for a large site, then without 


a site review it -- it's going to take some 


time to -- to make it -- make it through the 


process. 


And this is a question both for -- I guess for 


-- sort of the suggestion for the Board, but 


also for -- for NIOSH that when we talked 


yesterday about the -- a workgroup report, we 


made the suggestion that there be -- that 


currently NIOSH develops its evaluation plan 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

283 

very early and it's a very general plan, so 


this leads to the general steps that we're 


going to take. Seems to me that there's some 


point, after NIOSH has had a -- maybe a little 


bit more of a chance to review the materials, 


think -- think about the petition, so forth, 


that there -- there would be a time when we 


could pull together -- you know, that NIOSH 


would have more specific plan, what were going 


to be the crit-- what they saw to be the 


critical datasets and -- and so forth, that 


that would be the time to put together -- pull 


together NIOSH, a workgroup and the contractor, 


sort of sit down -- particularly the contractor 


staff would have been involved in the site -- 


site profile review, to sit down and -- and 


sort of look at how do we -- you know, where do 


we go from here, how do we go through and 


review the -- the portions of that site 


profile, the portions of the data that are 


going to be important for the SEC evaluation. 


And I -- if I understand the task order so 


forth -- process right, I think that would be 


an appropriate way of -- of proceeding. The --


the issue would be scheduling that first 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

284 

meeting, but from there there should be -- then 


be sort of a work plan and everyone be able to 


sort of schedule out what would be involved. 


I think when I was listening this -- when we 


were discussing the Y-12 site profile review, 


in some sense that's already being done there. 


I mean I think -- gives a pretty good idea what 


the critical parts are, you know, that need -- 


and I think even for Rocky Flats, I thought I 


heard -- heard the same and so forth. But --


but to me, that would be a way of having a 


procedure in place, avoiding a very lengthy 


step-wise -- you know, serial process, but 


let's try to do some of this in parallel. Keep 


the -- our contractor's task sort of focused in 


relationship to the -- to the SEC review. 


Is -- is that making sense, I guess is my 


question to my fellow Board members and NIOSH? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in a sense what we're doing 


now is -- is targeted reviews of the site 


profile to assist us in -- in the SEC 


evaluation, so that's -- in practice is what's 


happening. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I was going to -- I mean as 


I read this section, I was thinking the full 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

285 

review is actually what we're now calling the 


targeted site profile review 'cause there -- 


it's a full review of the -- of the issues that 


may affect the SEC, you know. That's -- that's 


sort of how I was interpreting it. But -- I 


mean I -- if you want to modify the language, I 


think that was the intent. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it's a little bit mixed in 


how it's presented, 'cause I think we're also 


going back to sort of Mallinckrodt examples and 


so forth where we got -- we were really using 


the site profile review -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- in lieu of a -- a SEC review, 


and I think that has some disadvantages in 


terms of -- of some of the questions it can 


focus on, and that was some of our -- our 


problem. We weren't necessarily getting -- 


weren't having our contractor, you know, answer 


some of the key questions or give us advice on 


some of the key questions. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right. We'll hear from Larry 


and then from John. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: You know -- yes, we have been 


dwelling on the early history of our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

286 

development of the evaluation reports on 


petitions, and I would say that our 


Mallinckrodt experience and our Iowa experience 


are -- are learning experiences, one we're 


building from. 


The plan that we gave you -- that we give you 


on every evaluation of a petition is a generic 


plan. It is not specific in detail. It is, we 


hope, comprehensive in its general-- 


generality. What's lost -- in my understanding 


of the proposal that has been made by the 


working group and what I see in SC&A's comments 


in their review about another plan, a more 


detailed plan -- is that we're struggling with 


our -- we're struggling really hard trying to 


come forward in 180 days with a scientific 


basis to make a recommendation to add or deny a 


class. And I'm not sure -- I can't -- I can't 


seem to grasp how we would do that in 


conjunction of providing a detailed plan along 


that trail. 


I see it more as what I can -- what I can 


understand in my mind is a more concerted 


coordination effort where we sit with the 


working group and SC&A and say here's where 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 -- 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

287 

we're at, here's the -- here's the -- the 


salient issues that we're wrestling with on how 


to evaluate this petition. And you know, I 


think if we can -- if we can approach it as a 


more -- a better coordination effort, we're 


better off. I hate to see -- to me, a plan, an 


additional detailed plan within the context of 


a 180-day time requirement, is make-work for 


us. And I'm not sure that's going to get us a 


lot farther down the road or a lot quicker down 


the road. But I do believe that a better, more 


concerted coordination effort can get us to 


where we want to be. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Your concern then is that you may 


spend an excessive amount of time on the plan 


versus actually doing the job that needs to be 


done. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, we don't have a lot of time 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- in 180 days to create another 


plan. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And that's why you haven't seen 


us come forward with a different version of a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

288 

plan for each SEC petition. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: We gave you a general -- what we 


consider --


 DR. ZIEMER: A generic approach, yeah. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- a generic, comprehensive plan 


that spoke to these are the types of things 


that we would have to consider in evaluating a 


petition. And we've stopped short of providing 


any further detail on that. I certainly want 


to work, you know, in a more coordinated 


fashion with the working group and the Board 


and SC&A on getting to the end product here. 


But I'm not sure that -- in my opinion, I don't 


think we can just generate another plan and 


it's going to help us get there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. John. 


DR. MAURO: I'd like to bring up a practical 


issue related to managing budgets and how we're 


proceeding with our work. When we have a site 


profile such as Y-12 where we perform our 


review, deliver our product, the bottom line is 


that -- the way we try to manage it is we try 


to deliver that product to you -- thick book -- 


within 1,000 work hours. That's how we manage 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

289 

ourselves. We set aside 150 work hours for the 


closeout process. Okay? So let's say we're 


dealing with a site profile that is -- does not 


have SEC implications. That plan works. 
I 


think it's very doable to, within 150 


additional work hours, to engage in the 


dialogue, hold our meetings with the working 


groups, close out issues, put it to bed -- if 


we can. 


 However, what I am concerned about is -- let's 


use now Y-12 as an example. Okay? We've 


delivered our Y-12 work product. We did --


delivered it within budget. But right now I 


have in the bank 150 work hours to support the 


closeout process. Well, the closeout process, 


as we all know, is now really part of the SEC 


process. I don't know what we will be called 


upon to do. Previously Mark had mentioned that 


we had these 6,000 records. Probab-- there 


might be some things that you may call upon us 


to do. It may simply be on the back end to 


take a look at whatever the results are. You 


may call upon us earlier to be more involved. 


What I -- I guess where I'm going with this is 


that keep in mind that when we're in an SEC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

290 

mode, we are going to run into back-end work 


hour problems; 150 work hours will blink out of 


existence like that (indicating) when we get 


involved aggressively in the SEC closeout 


process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. Arjun? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, when we were drafting the 


-- the report, both for Board procedures and 


SC&A procedures, we did think it useful to kind 


of focus -- and maybe it's my lack of 


understanding of, you know, institutionally 


what's involved in developing a site-specific 


plan. And perhaps the words that Larry used 


would be -- would be more appropriate. And I 


think if that's what we've been doing now in 


regard to SEC and focusing those issues, that ­

- that would be appropriate. I -- I don't 


know, but we -- certainly some site-specific 


information from NIOSH is necessary as to how ­

- where NIOSH is and how they're evaluating in 


the process. 


And -- and the one point I think where a lot of 


effort is needed on SECs where no effort, or 


very -- well, I wouldn't -- I shouldn't say no 


effort, but some internal effort is put in when 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

291 

we prepare site profile reviews and in 


coordinating with the folks that are doing dose 


reconstruction audits to figure out what's 


going on in individual dose reconstructions and 


so on, but while we inform ourselves during the 


review, there isn't a huge effort around dose 


reconstructions when we do site profile 


reviews. There's some, but there's not a lot. 


And it seems to me, the way it has worked out 


and what seems to best exemplify feasibility 


under SEC, that a lot of effort has to be 


devoted in developing, defining and then having 


some rubber meets the road test around are 


these methods actually applicable in real dose 


reconstructions. And I think that is -- that's 


the big point of departure between just doing a 


site profile review, other than documentation 


and verification and so on with various 


other... 


The other -- the other big difference is -- in 


site profile reviews, just to remind you of 


what our own procedure has been and what we've 


been delivering to you, is we don't cover all 


issues. We highlight issues -- we call them 


vertical issues. We don't promise you that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

292 

we've chased every last thing down. Whereas 


when you're doing an SEC petition review, 


within the framework of a more limited dose 


reconstruction idea, you do have to chase down 


the last thing on feasibility for the last 


answer for all cancers and for all members of 


the class. And so the goal is very different. 


And while we've been kind of muddling along in 


terms of -- if I might use that phrase, you 


might excuse me -- that to -- to move ahead 


with site profile reviews, I do think, having ­

- having spent quite a lot of time drafting 


these reports, that there is a great deal of 


merit in having something that is focused on 


SEC reviews. 

 DR. MELIUS: Can I respond to a couple of those 

points? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, let me have Mark -- Mark was 

up (unintelligible)... 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


I mean I was just going to say that I think 


what -- Larry's comment I think speaks to the 


spirit or the goal of our intent, which was 


earlier involvement with the Board and the 


contractor -- and our contractor and, you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

293 

I don't know that -- I -- I tend to think -- 


you know, we don't need a -- my fear here, I 


think, is that if -- if we put a step in to 


develop a plan -- as long as we have a 


commitment for earlier involvement, I'm not 


sure we needed a commitment for a plan because 


I think that plan may be out the window by the 


end of the 180 days, anyway. So you know, I 


think that the -- the real thing we need is 


that -- that -- that commitment for the earlier 


involvement and -- and get together, focus, 


find out what -- you know, put the issues on 


the table, the likely issues that are going to 


come up in this SEC review, and then go forward 


from there, you know, so -- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Dr. (unintelligible) you 


know, I haven't consulted with my colleagues, 


obviously, but I -- I do take -- I do take the 


spirit of Larry's comments, and I entir-- 


entirely agree with you. There's -- there's 


not a bureaucratic intent in -- in what we 


propose, but --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, understood. Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, first of all, to answer 


John's question, yes, you will get -- you will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

294 

get paid, that's why we (unintelligible) the 


task for the SEC reviews -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Notice who's guaranteeing it, 

though. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- we just want to make sure you 

don't get paid too much, so we want to focus it 


a little bit, so -- that. (Unintelligible) I 


thought about this a little bit and yeah, we 


don't want to (unintelligible) but there are 


some things that I think you -- from the time 


you produce your generic plan to the time that 


you really get going on the (unintelligible) 


plan, you do, and I think one of the steps that 


you do -- that you have access to that we don't 


are the completed site -- the dose 


reconstructions or those underway for that 


particular site. And I think you can -- you 


pull those out, you understand what -- what ex­

- what datasets you've used to do those, what 


have been the problems and so forth. And I 


think bringing that experience -- and I think 


that takes you some time to do, I -- I think 


bringing that experience forward 


(unintelligible) not preparing a report but 


being ready to talk about that with a workgroup 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

295 

from the Board, with the Board's -- our 


contractor there, along with whatever has been 


done to review the site profile and so forth is 


going to -- you know, that's the plan. That's 


where you're going to -- we'll develop a plan. 


Is that plan going to be perfect? No. Does it 


have to be a written thing that gets reviewed? 


No. But -- but I think -- you bring that. Our 


contractor would bring, you know, the site 


profile review that's been done, or at least -- 


and maybe -- wherever that is. It may be 


underway, it may not be completed yet. They 


would bring that, and from that, hopefully we 


would develop, you know, a way forward that 


would be sort of more focused. 


What our guidelines -- our workgroup guidelines 


and so -- and the criteria and so forth that we 


talked about yesterday and talk about more 


today, I -- I think, again, provide sort of a 


framework for providing that focus, but I don't 


think anyone's expecting that, yeah, it's these 


three datasets that we're going to spend -- you 


know, and, you know, do this, that and that. 


It's not that kind of a plan, but -- but at 


least there'd be a way forward and yeah -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

296 

yeah, we need to do this and meet again in, you 


know, a month and we'll provide this to you, 


something like that. And I think the -- 


estimating that it's going to be -- claiming 


it's going to be done in 180 days or 120 days 


or whatever, you're not going to know at that 


point in time. You're not going to know until 


you figure out, but at least you'd have some 


sense of what the -- the overall scope and 


resources necessary and what you'd have to do. 


But -- but you already have some inform-- you 


don't -- you'll have information that nobody 


else has access to at that point in time. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's better to bring you all 


along as we go through it, I agree. I see the 


merit and the benefit to that. And as Dr. 


Neton answered your question earlier about our 


-- our attitude and our feelings toward the -- 


the sufficient accuracy paper that you talked 


about earlier, we are behaving that way. We're 


taking that seriously and we're -- we're 


modifying how we go about doing our evaluation 


of a petition, recognizing that the Board wants 


to see example dose reconstructions if we're 


saying to deny the class. How can we go about 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

297 

doing a dose reconstruction in order to support 


that recommendation. I think that we would all 


be better served if we could map out, in a 


time-line fashion, you know, what has to happen 


over the course of this 180-day mark and -- and 


know that there's certain suspense dates in 


that time line that certain things have to 


happen. We have to have a meeting with the 


working group, we have to share with the 


working group where we're at currently, what -- 


what we're wrestling with. We should vet draft 


examples and make sure that they're going to be 


compelling enough, or are we going to have to 


go back to the drawing board and find some 


more, give you a better sense of all of the 


dose reconstructions that have been completed 


to date and how they were completed and why we 


think they were done with sufficient accuracy. 


All of that I think could be mapped out in a 


time line which may serve us well -- you know, 


better than a -- creating a plan and then 


coming back and saying well, that plan didn't 


work. We've got to create another plan. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Good. Other comments or 


questions? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

298

 DR. WADE: I have a comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: I mean I think this has been a very 


useful discussion and -- and I think the spirit 


of what Larry put on the table I think is 


exactly what Arjun came suggesting. So I think 


while it might have been different terminology, 


I think there's a great deal of coincidence 


there. 


What I would point out to the Board, though, is 


that -- and I've given you this piece of paper 


which speaks to sort of the status of -- of SEC 


petitions. And I'm not saying you need to do 


it now, but if you want to think about having 


that meeting that Larry sort of offered that 


Arjun is asking for early in the process to 


sort of sort out these issues, your -- your 


target of opportunity is limited in that -- I 


mean if you'll look at this page, you have -- 


now we -- we've -- we're working on Pacific 


Proving Grounds, Y-12 and Rocky Flats. You can 


do more on those if you wish. But the only 


three other qualified petitions are listed 


there. You might want to choose one of those 


to use as the first example of trying to put 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

299 

this process into place, and that is have this 


early interaction between SC&A, NIOSH and the 


Board to try and work these issues, whatever 


you call it. I'm not suggesting you do that, 


but there's an opportunity to do that. The 


targets of opportunity are somewhat limited. 


In NIOSH-speak, it's not a petition until it's 


qualified. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments now? 


Larry, uh-huh. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: The public -- I don't know if the 


public realizes this, but the document you're 


talking about is on the table. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: And I just think that it would be 


of -- in good order to read, for the record, 


what site petitions we are currently evaluating 


so that --


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you know, it can be codified 


there. We have the -- the Pacific Proving 


Ground, which you have attended to today. We 


have Y-12, that's petition 28 and that covers 


the plumbers, pipe-fitters and steamfitters 


from '44 to '57 and we talked about that also 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

300 

at this meeting. We also have the Rocky Flats 


petition, and of course we're way behind on it 


and we want to get the site profile resolved in 


order to make the evaluation report stand on 


its own merit. 


We also have the Oak Ridge Institute for 


Nuclear Studies, and here's an interesting one 


because almost all of the ORAU folks are 


conflicted on that and so my folks are doing 


that, and that presents us another resource-


limiting problem. 


We also have Ames, Iowa, which is a very 


interesting site and my folks are telling me 


that they're coming along fine with working on 


that. There's a lot of good documentation that 


the petitioners have provided us and, you know, 


maybe that's one you might want to pick up and 


we -- we start working a time line against. 


We also have Chapman Valve that's been 


qualified, and so we are preparing to -- you 


know, initiate our evaluation report on that. 


 DR. MELIUS: On which of -- of those latter 


three, which ones have site profiles? Or are 


included in site profiles, that may be... 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Jim, I would ask you to correct 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

301 

me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Ames 


Laboratory has a site profile. Chapman Valve 


does. 


 DR. MELIUS: That's what I thought. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Oak Ridge Institute for Nuclear 


Studies does not. So there's different -- 


that's good to know the flavors that we have to 


deal with here. 


 DR. MELIUS: And on Chapman Valve, is the -- 


are you reviewing that, John? 


DR. MAURO: No, we -- we have cases -- we have 


cases that involve that, and as a result of 


that we read and review the site profile that's 


-- that's relevant, but we do not have -- we 


have not been authorized to review Chapman 


Valve as a site profile. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Also on this --


 DR. ZIEMER: Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- second page -- I apologize, 


this was a FAX that we had sent in to us today, 


and the second page lists a summary of active 


SEC submissions and petitions, some of which 


are duplicated from the first page, but some of 


which here on the second page have not yet 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

302 

qualified. And I apologize for the two black 


lines here. I'm sorry, I can't -- I can read 


the bottom line, that's Linde Ceramics, and the 


class has been added and that's been treated. 


I don't know what -- I think the other top line 


that's black --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, that's NBS -- that's NBS, 


and so that's been dealt with, as well. 


 DR. WADE: So just to give the Board some -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I thought they were redacted. I 


wasn't even going to try, that's the reason 


I... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Well, but just again now, if the 


Board is -- it wants to in earnest move forward 


with trying to utilize its contractor, this is 


the universe. Maybe it'd be worth choosing one 


and having an early meeting. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I work -- as a question, going 


backwards. What about Y-12 and Rocky Flats, 


where are we in terms of -- obviously we -- I 


don't think we can necessarily go through the 


whole plan as we've talked about, or the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

303 

process, but we do have those that are going to 


come up shortly -- shortly for consideration. 


They are, you know, fairly technically 


complicated. We have site profile reviews 


underway, but I thought I heard -- what John 


was saying is that he's sort of running out of 


room to do -- do much, I mean -- which I think 


is a legitimate concern on those, and I would 


think that we'd want to consider invoking our 


contractor's assistance on both of those, also, 


in terms of the SEC evaluation portion of it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to suggest that you keep 


that thought in mind, and we'll return to it. 


Now what I'd like to do is get our document on 


the board, and then having the input from the 


two presentations by SC&A and the discussion 


that we heard and our own document, you'll have 


a chance to mull this over tonight -- 


 DR. WADE: We have time on the agenda tomorrow. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and tomorrow we have time on 


the agenda to move forward with a specific plan 


and, if so desired, to identify some -- one or 


more sites. I would prefer that we not try to 


identify sites until we get through the 


framework on which we will proceed. 

 

304 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

PROCEDURES FOR BOARD EVALUATION OF SEC PETITIONS ­

DISCUSSON PART II (INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF THE PENDING
 

Y-12 PETITION AND A DISCUSSION OF THE SC&A SEC TASK)
 

DR. JAMES MELIUS, ABRWH
 

So with that in mind, we come to the item 


called procedures for Board evaluation of SEC 


petitions. Yesterday Dr. Melius gave us an 


overview of the document. We had -- and the 


Board has had the document in advance to look 


at. I think now is the opportunity to have 


further discussion on that document, input. 


And we do not have to necessarily approve the 


document today, but we might -- we might 


identify -- if there are any substantive 


changes to make, identify what those are. 


Lew, I think you expressed to us the interest 


of the Secretary's office in the document as 


it's developed. Is -- is there an interest in 


having input from them -- 


 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as well, let me ask you -- 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, let me -- let me speak to this 


just briefly. As I mentioned yesterday, the -- 


I briefed the Secretary's staff on the agenda, 


and there was particular interest in this item, 


as you can imagine, because the Secretary is -- 


is the recipient of your recommendations. So 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

305 

as I mentioned yesterday, the Secretary is very 


interested in your giving a full vetting of the 


document, as you -- as you go through. The 


Secretary would also like the opportunity to 


comment on your procedures before you finalize 


them, and I think we should afford the 


Secretary that opportunity. 


It doesn't mean you can't be guided by what you 


do and we can't make decisions, and we need to 


make decisions as we move forward. But I think 


there is an interest on the Secretary's part to 


-- to provide you with comment as you move to 


finalize. 


 The other thing that I would propose that we do 


is we need to hear from counsel as to what 


timeliness means in the context of the law and 


the rule. And whether we do that tomorrow 


morning or whether we do that now, I think it 


would inform the discussion if we had a sense 


of what timeliness meant. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, let's -- let's get 


the document on the floor and I'll ask Dr. 


Melius to kick off the discussion here again, 


and then have the opportunity for Board members 


to in-put. Go ahead, Jim. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

306

 DR. MELIUS: I think the -- well, I guess first 


of all, the report. I've heard no comments 


from other Board members since yesterday when ­

- when we discussed it. There -- I think Mr. 


Miller last night in his public comments, or 


late yesterday afternoon I think, raised -- 


raised two issues, and I have discussed some of 


those issues with other Board members, that -- 


one was the -- I -- the feasibility, sort of 


timeliness issue, which I think, you know, 


could be addressed in this. I think there's 


the issue of the regulations, as well as maybe 


your legal interp-- 'terpretations, so that 


might be better dealt with after we've had this 


legal presentation tomorrow or whenever. 


 The other issue which is the issue of the use 


of data from other sites as a -- for a site 


profile. I guess Bethlehem would be an 


example, but it's come up elsewhere, and should 


we develop criteria guiding the use -- use of 


such data, so forth. And actually in some of 


my discussions other Board members have 


mentioned they thought that was something that 


might be appropriate for us to -- to 


incorporate in some way. I would actually 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

307 

think that that would require some sort of 


further discussion, either here or possibly, 


you know, reconvening our workgroup to work on 


developing criteria 'cause it's not a -- it's 


not straightforward to do. I think there's 


some -- some pitfalls we need to -- to be aware 


of in doing that -- doing that. So I think 


that's where I stand now in terms of comments. 


 DR. ZIEMER: On the timeliness issue, right now 


the document speaks to it more conceptually in 


terms of the Board's interest in moving forward 


in a timely fashion. In fact, we use -- I 


think intentionally -- rather fuzzy terms. We 


don't have any statements that say we must act 


within a certain time frame. On the other 


hand, it's clear that we do not want this to 


stretch out. 


Now we can be informed in terms of any legal 


aspects of what constitutes timeliness, or 


maybe not. The attorneys may not want to touch 


that a bit. So --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No, the only thing I can 


tell you is --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- can you give us a timely answer 


to this question? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

308 

MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: The only thing I can tell 


you is that I can share with you how timeliness 


is used in the law. I can share with you how 


it's used in the regulation. But to give you a 


legal interpretation of it, just having been 


asked yesterday, I cannot -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- we call them 


(unintelligible) legal opinions and we don't 


give them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Right, thank you. In any 


event, I think the -- I think the document 


could stand, in terms of philosophical view of 


timeliness, without having the legal framework, 


probably. But the other issue on the use of 


data from other sites basically didn't get 


addressed in this document. And perhaps that's 


an add-on that we might want to include and 


have the workgroup actually deal with that. 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I comment on the timeliness 

issue? 

 DR. ZIEMER: You bet. 

 DR. MELIUS: Since we won't have a legal 

definition of -- of it. And this is just a 


thought, maybe. I'm not even sure I'm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

309 

suggesting we do it, but -- but one 


consideration should be should we make some of 


the language more specific in terms of what are 


some of the situations that may arise that -- 


that would affect timeliness, and what -- what 


are justifiable reasons for (unintelligible), 


how -- how would we handle procedurally things 


that the -- for example -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are you thinking of cases -- 

 DR. MELIUS: -- data -- access to --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- or examples? 

 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, access to a dataset is not 

possible, critical dataset that we need for 


doing dose reconstruction is -- or is -- to -- 


in -- for evaluating for SEC purposes. That's 


just not available. To me, that's a very 


justifiable reason for, you know -- you know, 


postponing action and so forth -- and that, and 


something like that. And so it would be along 


those lines sort of how -- how we would deal 


with tho-- those types of issues. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But again, you're talking about 


providing examples of how one might -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Examples as opposed to -- yeah. 


Once again, I (unintelligible) -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

310

 DR. ZIEMER: As opposed to -- (unintelligible), 


okay. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: You haven't provoked 


counsel. That was actually going to be an 


example I was going to give, because the SEC 


rule does speak to that specific situation. 


 DR. WADE: Maybe you -- maybe you can do your 


li-- can you run through your list for us? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Oh, sure. 


 DR. WADE: I think it'd be --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: What I pulled together was ­

- out of the actual statute, timeliness is only 


mentioned once, and it's under the purpose of 


the program, to compensate -- it's a 


compensation program to provide timely, uniform 


and adequate compensation to covered employees. 


Lew also asked me to pull the two new deadlines 


that were added -- I think you all probably 


know them by heart, the 180 days to make a 


recommendation, and then the President -- which 


has been designated to HHS -- has 30 days to 


provide a determination to Congress, once this 


Board provides a positive determination to the 


Secretary. And then I was also going to let 


you know that the SEC rule, as it currently 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

311 

stands, and the recommended rule still includes 


this part, gives the Director of OCAS the 


ability to determine that records are not 


available in the timely manner. And this will 


be considered the same as a determination that 


the records are not available at all. So those 


are kind of -- those are the legal places where 


it's actually included. And then if anyone's 


really that interested, there's a lot of 


preamble language discussing it that I can give 


you copies of. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Wanda and then 


Jim and then Henry. 


 MS. MUNN: Both of the items that are being 


discussed here are resource-limited. It would 


be very nice if we had all the time that we 


needed and if we had all of the resources 


necessary to do all of the comparisons that we 


need do -- to do, and nobody was upset about 


not having their claims or their SECs moved 


forward last week. But that doesn't apply 


either to this Board nor to NIOSH nor to our 


contractor. We're all resource-limited. 


 The more specific we become, the less fluid the 


process can be. And the less fluid the process 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

312 

can be, in many cases, the more -- the less 


timely it is likely to be. 


The document we have before us is pretty well-


written, and allows the reader to understand 


that everyone involved would like to see 


timeliness, would like to avoid the use of 


surrogate sites, but when timeliness is an 


issue and resources are an issue, we must make 


hard choices. My personal choice would be to 


accept the document the way it is. In the 


interest of timeliness, I would be more than 


willing to move it when the other Board members 


are ready for that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Jim, did you have 


another comment? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would just -- I actually 


was just thinking, maybe I should just stop 


here since I've got Wanda -- unusual situation 


-- agreeing with me on it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I was just about to say, 


I'm willing to second it if (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we'll hear from -- 

 DR. MELIUS: But, however --

 DR. ZIEMER: However. 

 DR. MELIUS: I'm not taking issue, but just a 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

313 

clarification, I would think it could be 


helpful that if we took a little bit of time 


and a little bit of resources among our Board 


to try to come up with some criteria for where 


-- how to use data from other sites. I think 


that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- one that would be -- be useful 


and would hopefully save us some time going in 


the future. 


 DR. ZIEMER: All right. Henry Anderson. 


DR. ANDERSON: I was only going to address a 


different timeliness issue as -- as the 


timeliness here is it seems to be on the front 


end, the timeliness of getting the SEC petition 


processed. I was just going to raise the issue 


which came up in some of our other discussions 


that if the determination is made that it is 


feasible -- in other words, you're going to 


deny the petition -- there needs to be some 


timeliness in when will these petition -- or 


the cases be dose reconstructed. I think one 


of the issues was well, we can do it, but it -- 


I mean that's why we asked for examples -- but 


they haven't really done it yet. And as we've 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

314 

heard this morning, there's some people that -- 


for the Proving Grounds -- filed four years ago 


and clearly somebody looked at them at some 


time and said we can't do these, and then they 


just sat. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


DR. ANDERSON: And so if a determination's made 


it can be done, it has to move -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. ANDERSON: -- and somewhere we just need to 


recognize that there needs to be a timeliness ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. ANDERSON: -- of being able to complete the 


cases that are waiting. 


 DR. MELIUS: I think we actually --


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? 


 DR. MELIUS: -- we do have that on page 8, 


so... 


UNIDENTIFIED: Oh, you do? Fine. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now also I would point out that we 


could, in principle, accept the document with 


the understanding that it would be expanded as 


needed, with additional criteria as they're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

315 

identified. What I'm going to suggest -- 


Well, I want to ask this question, Board 


members. Is there anything in the presentation 


by SC&A on what they identified as the 


procedures for a Board SCA (sic) review, 


anything that you see there that would cause 


you to want to modify the workgroup document? 


To a large extent, it's a supplement to it, and 


more of a procedural supplement, but I do want 


to provide that opportunity if you think any 


changes are needed for that. 


If not, what I'm going to suggest is that we 


reserve any formal actions on this until our 


work session tomorrow. That'll give you 


additional time to think about any of the 


parameters, as well -- yeah, when you're done 


reading your minutes and... 


DR. ANDERSON: Let's move something. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if you want to move 


something today, you can. 


We also -- keep in mind -- I would suggest, if 


you're ready to accept the document, that we do 


it in a provisional manner, soliciting the 


input from the Secretary's office as -- and -- 


and having a caveat that it's open to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

316 

additional amendments as the Board sees fit. 


 DR. MELIUS: I would agree with that if -- to 


use some of my Chicago background -- if you 


would take -- Paul, if you will take 


responsibility for delivering Wanda's vote 


tomorrow. I don't want her being able to 


change her mind overnight. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well -- well, let me say this. If 


-- if you want to take action on the document 


itself today, we can do that. I would suggest, 


nonetheless, that we wait till tomorrow on -- 


on identifying the sites that we may wish to 


have work done. 


 DR. WADE: I think it's better 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: If so, I'll entertain a motion for 


provisional acceptance of the document. By 


that I mean we would consider it our working 


document for the time being, open to 


modifications as -- or at least some input from 


the Secretary's office, as well as -- 


 DR. DEHART: Second -- I'll second Wanda's 


motion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- as well as possible additions 


on this issue of using other site data. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

317

 DR. WADE: Yeah, I think the -- the thought of 


getting the working group together to -- to 


complete that issue I think is a good thought 


and I would hate to see that lost. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So that what it would do would be 


basically to accept what we have here as a 


starting point and keep the door open for 


changes. If the Board is comfortable with 


that, that would be a motion for something 


similar. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I hate to put words in other 


people's mouth, it's a very unsanitary way of 


speaking. 


 MS. MUNN: Although I'm not the chair of the 


working group, who perhaps should move -- 


 DR. MELIUS: I will defer -- I will gladly 


defer to you making the motion. 


 MS. MUNN: Would you please record that? It's 


a first. 


I move that this body accept the document that 


is before us as a provisional document, with 


the understanding that the input of the 


Secretary will be used to help expand the 


document and complete it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

318

 DR. ZIEMER: I'll interpret that as including 


the possible expansion for other related 


topics, as were -- if that's agreeable. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And seconded by Roy DeHart. Now, 


discussion? 


 (No responses) 


Are you ready to vote? You're longing to vote. 


 MS. MUNN: Please. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Please vote. All in favor, aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


 Any opposed? 


 (No responses) 


 Any abstentions? 


 (No responses) 


 Motion carries. 


 DR. MELIUS: (Off microphone) Could we now read 


back (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: I believe -- now the group is 


getting giddy. I believe that completes our 


formal action for today. We are going to 


return at 7:00 p.m. for a public comment 


period. Let me ask Lew Wade if he has any 


additional comments or instructions for us 


before we depart. No? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

319 

Okay, we will recess until 7:00 p.m. Thank you 


very much. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 5:00 p.m. 


to 7:00 p.m.) 


PUBLIC COMMENT


 DR. ZIEMER: Good evening, everyone. We have 


some folks still coming in, but I think we're 


going to go ahead and start, try to keep on 


schedule, if we can. 


My name is Paul Ziemer -- oh, there are some 


more chairs, though you may want to squeeze 


together, at least let people know if there's a 


chair near you. If you can squeeze together a 


little bit, too, that can help. We'll try to 


get some more folks in. 


I serve as Chair of this committee. I want to 


just take a minute or two and tell you what the 


committee does and what we don't do. It's 


actually an Advisory Board, and we advise the 


Secretary of Health and Human Services on the 


dose reconstruction program that's being 


carried out by NIOSH, and many of you are quite 


familiar with that program and are even 


claimants in that program. 


This Board is not the board -- we do not do the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

320 

dose reconstructions, and we are not an appeals 


board for people who have claims that have been 


denied. Rather we are simply an advisory board 


to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, 


looking over the agency's shoulder. We are not 


part of the federal agency. We are all 


independent folks. I'm -- I'm a retired 


professor -- and, incidentally, a former Oak 


Ridger -- and we are looking over the agency's 


shoulder to determine the extent to which the 


program is being conducted in the proper 


fashion. 


So we review some of the dose reconstructions 


in an audit fashion, as it were. We review 


site profiles and that sort of thing. And in 


the course of our deliberations where we come 


together periodically and hear from the agency 


and from others how the program is going, we 


always have an open meeting, and through the 


open meetings we also gain information about 


how the program is working -- or, for some 


people, not working, as it may be. 


But I do want you to know that if you have 


individual concerns about your own claim or a 


claim of a relative, there are NIOSH staff 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

321 

people here to assist you with that. So they 


do want to take care of the individual claims. 


And many of you will, I'm sure, tonight tell us 


about your experiences, and from that we learn 


certain things about what the problems are with 


the program, what's not working, what is 


working and so on. So that's really what we're 


doing here tonight. 


Now I have a couple of lists. I have the 


starting list here of about 15 people who've 


asked to speak, and there's another page like 


this, so I'm guessing there's probably about 30 


people who have requested to speak. And 


recognize we have scheduled about an hour and a 


half of time, so if you are one who are -- 


that's speaking to the group tonight, you can 


do the math there. Let's see, we've got maybe 


30 people and 90 minutes, so it doesn't give -- 


if you're taking ten or 15 minutes, you really 


are going to be depriving someone else of time. 


So we ask you, to the extent you feel 


comfortable, try to be fairly concise in what 


you do. 


Now when -- I'm not going to ring any bells or 


make you sit down, but we do request that you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

322 

try to be as concise as you can and still 


convey what you wish to the Board. Okay? 


And the Board members are here. I'm not going 


to introduce them individually. Their name 


tags are there. They come from all parts of 


the country. They represent worker groups, 


technical groups and so on. We have a broad 


representation of folks on the Board. Many of 


them are retired, some still working, so it's a 


cross-section of people. We -- different ones 


have expertise in different things. All of us 


are -- we're like anybody else, you know. 


We're dumb in certain things and we think we're 


smart in others, but that's how it is. 


Okay. I'm just going to go down the list in 


order and as you -- if you're comfortable, you 


can stand here, there's another mike here, 


wherever you're comfortable in addressing the 


group will be fine. We do need -- when you 


come up, need to have you repeat your name for 


our court reporter -- 'cause we do keep a 


transcript of everything that is said, and that 


transcript does go on our web site -- so that 


we capture the information that's presented 


tonight. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

323 

So we'll begin with B. A. Austin. B. A. 


Austin. 


 (No responses) 


Some folks may have signed up earlier and 


didn't arrive yet. If B. A. Austin's not here 


yet, let's go to Gail Elkin. 


 (No responses) 


Okay. Well, I'll come back and check on these 


later. Jack Wolum -- Woolum, W-o-o-l-u-m -- 


Jack? 


 MR. WOOLUM: I've already got my questions 


answered. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You got your questions answered, 


okay, Jack. How about Jim -- I believe it may 


be Phelps -- Jim, thank you. 


 MR. PHELPS: Hi, my name is Jim Phelps, for the 


court reporter. I'm here to speak about my 


father's experience at the Y-12 nuclear weapons 


plant over the years. I understand that you 


all are trying to do a dose reconstruction at a 


plant that had probably weak records on 


dosimetry. It also is a complicated site where 


chemicals interfere with the free oxygen 


radical damage of radiation. Oak Ridge is more 


characterized as a chemical damage site than a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

324 

radiation damage site, and that's one of the 


problems. 


You say you want to use best available science. 


Best available science in Oak Ridge says that 


you look at the radiation, you look at the 


mechanism for radiation. And at Oak Ridge -- 


at ORNL when I worked there, we looked at some 


of those mechanisms way back in the '80s. And 


what we decided is when radiation passes 


through a medium you get free oxygen radicals. 


These upset cells do damage to mitochondrias of 


cells, and these react and make something 


called superoxide dimutase enzymes, which go 


and repair that damage. If that damage gets 


very high, you start noticing things like 


mycoplasmas becoming active in the persons and 


you have to sometimes give them antibiotics to 


have them recover from high dose radiation. 


What happens next is you get competition for 


the trace metals in the cell that disrupts 


another enzyme called 2-5A RNase L, and the 


metal that gets in competition is manganese. 


And what happens is a mutation of that enzyme 


from a normal 83 kilodalton weight to a 37 


kilodalton weight. When that mutation occurs, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

325 

the cells can no longer defend themselves from 


pathogens, be that pathogen mycoplasmas or the 


complement of viruses that you'd normally see 


in cancer tumors. When you lose that 


mechanism, cancer viruses and bacterias can 


take over control for the cytokine mechanisms 


in the cells. Now that's the simple approach 


to radiation damage. 


We didn't stop there at ORNL back in the '80s. 


We went and added the chemical damage vector 


component, and one of the things we noticed was 


that hydrogen fluoride easily enters the body 


in places like Y-12 in their green salt 


operation and places like the hydrolysis of UF6 released from K-25 makes HF. As people are 


exposed to that, that's a fairly cumulative 


poison that deposits itself in the tissues and 


bones and gets progressively worse with age. 


And what happens is whenever you encounter 


aluminum in the environment, it will 


spontaneously combine in the body to form ALF3. 


ALF3 mimics a hormone called the thyroid 


stimulation hormone, and when that happens you 


no longer have the night and day variation that 


you get that allows your body to rest at night 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

326 

and do cellular repair. And what it seems to 


do is deplete an enzyme called glutathione. 


When that glutathione enzyme becomes depleted 


in persons exposed to those kinds of chemical 


toxins, you no longer remove the mercury from 


your body, and several other metals. And as 


mercury builds and it gets involved with the 


mtDNA and causes respiration dysfunction. How 


it makes ATP, it generates free oxygen radicals 


that does the same sort of damage as radiation 


pathways going through the cell. 


So what we identified was the chemical damage 


vector adds directly to the radiation damage 


vector. It's probably the bigger component at 


Y-12 from many operations and at K-25 from many 


operations. So I attended one of your last 


meetings over in Knoxville and the word was 


best available science. I think that we found 


a better available science back in the '80s at 


ORNL that speaks to this mechanism that I just 


pointed out to you. And I think, in terms of 


doing dose reconstructions, that most of these 


plants need to have the chemical vector put in 


there, more so than probably the radiation 


vector in many of these cases. So when you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

327 

just look at radiation, you're doing many of 


these people a disservice because most of them 


-- some of these chemicals like PCBs, uranium 


machinists at Y-12 were, in the early days, 


exposed to PCBs. PCBs is one of the chemicals 


that shuts down glutathione. When you lose 


that -- they also had a lot of mercury vapors 


at Y-12 -- you get mercury buildup, you get 


this reactive oxygen species damage generated 


in your cell mitochondria and it adds to the 


radiation component, so -- and it's usually 


much bigger, and it's a more cumulative process 


'cause PCBs are fairly retained, hydrogen 


fluoride's fairly highly retained, more so than 


some of the internalized uranium and various 


other internalized isotopes and external 


radiation kind of problems. 


So that's what I wanted to point out. I would 


like to ask that you somehow figure how to 


include that sort of criteria in doing these 


folks' dose assessments. It needs to go beyond 


just radiation because, you know, in the '80s 


we figured out this better model, this better 


modeling system that everybody that was in the 


national security group that I worked with that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

328 

was doing some -- trying to figure out what 


went wrong in Oak Ridge -- and agreed with it. 


It was standard available science in the 1980s. 


It has only been proven harder and firmer and 


difficult to ignore in this day and age. 


 So anyway, thanks for your time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, and certainly 


that is a challenging issue to consider. I 


would point out to the Board that I have 


received from Mr. Phelps a detailed copy of a 


letter which I think delineates pretty much 


what he has provided, and I will make sure that 


the Board members get a copy of this, as well, 


Mr. Phelps. 


Oh, have we distributed that already? If not, 


we'll make sure the Board members get copies of 


that, as well. Thank you very much. 


Then Otis Lee. Otis Lee? 


 MR. LEE: I pass. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Pass? Okay. T. L. Disman. 


 MR. DISHMAN: Hi, I'm T. L. Dishman --


 DR. ZIEMER: Dishman, okay. I said it wrong. 


 MR. DISHMAN: -- retired from Y-12 after 37 and 


a half years. I'm real disturbed at this dose 


reconstruction because after 37 and a half 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

329 

years and wearing a dose meter for maybe ten 


days during 37 years, I'm one that would know 


you couldn't reconstruct my record. And I 


think everyone in this room knows you can't 


reconstruct records that don't exist. And 


we've suffered with this malfeasance for all 


these years, and we're going to continue -- 


maybe our -- maybe our speaker that just 


finished has some good suggestions for us. 


Maybe we'll just check your health instead of 


your record 'cause you've got your health 


problems, but your records don't exist. So we 


need to not let everybody die before we say 


gosh, that's what we should have done. It's --


there -- there's a sin going on here, and it's 


a sin against these people, and it needs to be 


corrected and it needs to be corrected very 


soon. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Mr. Zimmer (sic), can they stand 


over here? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) stand over here -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- maybe -- maybe, Dr. Anderson, 

1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

330 

if you could help move the podium and then they 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) see the (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, sure, we can do that. We'd 


sort of like to see their faces, too, but we're 


facing each other. How about sideways, will 


that help to sort of... Thank you. 


Okay, next we have Cleveland Drummand. 


UNIDENTIFIED: We want to see everybody's face. 


Would you move the podium completely away? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, sure, yes. 


UNIDENTIFIED: We're looking at you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I gotcha. Okay. 


(Pause) 


 Cleveland Drummand? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: How about Lester -- is it Branham, 


Lester Branham? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Ray Beatty? Ray 


Beatty. 


 MR. BEATTY: Good evening. My name is Ray 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

331 

Beatty. I'm a 14-year employee at the Fernald 


site in Fernald, Ohio. I've come here tonight 


to express some opinion as to the Board 


membership. I was involved in the conference 


call that you all had about a month ago, and I 


heard of the new Board members coming on board, 


so I intend to address that tonight, and I 


think you saw today that there is an SEC 


petition, number 46, for the Fernald site, and 


this information would be very applicable to 


that application. 


It's in reference to Dr. James Lockey who's 


been appointed to serve on the Advisory Board, 


beginning with the next meeting. Having 


attended many of these meetings, I am pleased 


to see him here. Dr. Lockey's had extensive 


involvement at Fernald. He serves as the 


government's appointee to review causation 


related to state workers compensation claims as 


part of the Fernald Settlement Trust arising 


out of the case David Day versus 


(unintelligible) Industries of Ohio. 


There's a three-physician panel for Fernald 


workers which reviews workers' cases to 


determine whether DOE or their contractor will 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

332 

contest the claim. Dr. Lockey was also 


appointed by DOE and its contractor, Lockheed-


Martin, to review 55 six worker claims in Oak 


Ridge as part of the Lockey/Byrd/Freeman panel. 


I am requesting that Dr. Lockey's conflict of 


interest forms, his waiver letter and the 


relevant elements of his personal financial 


disclosure form that deal with his expert 


witness and other government DOE contractor 


consulting work be made public. We have no 


interest in his personal financial matters, 


only matters affecting public service. 


However, he should make public a list of all 


workers compensation or court cases -- pardon 


me, tort cases, claims where he has been served 


as an expert witness, whether testifying or 


not, and involving DOE or its contractors. 


 Dr. Lockey's reportedly had consulting 


arrangements in defense of litigation claims on 


behalf of various industries. This, too, 


should be disclosed as it may impact his public 


service. 


In addition, I would hope that Dr. Lockey will 


have no part in any deliberations, votes, 


reviews involving Fernald SECs, site profiles, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

333 

dose reconstructions or technical documents. 


While Dr. Lockey may be a fine person and 


someone supported, the integrity of the program 


for Fernald workers will be impaired if he's 


allowed to take part in any matter impacting 


Fernald workers. NIOSH has no shortage of 


staff that worked at Fernald who can contribute 


to their expertise. Information posted on the 


NIOSH web site for conflict of interest is far 


too limited to describe the full range of 


conflicts that should be made available. I 


would hope that if Dr. Lockey's permission is 


needed to disclose some of this information, 


that he would provide the necessary permission. 


Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much, and just as a 


general statement I'll point out that we do 


require all of the Board members to have a 


conflict of interest information on the web 


site. I believe -- the new members are 


probably not there yet, but -- 


 MR. BEATTY: They're -- they're not there, I've 

looked. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- they're not there yet 'cause 

they don't begin their term -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

334

 MR. BEATTY: And I have read --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- till next month. 

 MR. BEATTY: -- each member's conflict of 

interest and saw where a couple had a conflict 


of interest, but this one is much more 


extensive that I just alluded to. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. It will certainly be on the 


web site as soon as he begins his term, and we 


do have a Board rule on conflict of interest 


issues where we're not allowed to vote on sites 


where we have those conflicts, so -- 


 MR. BEATTY: Okay, I -- we (unintelligible) 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we appreciate your heads-up on 


that. 


 MR. BEATTY: Thank you very much. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. I'm having a little 


trouble reading this one. It may be Johanna 


Goodman, or it... Okay, good. 


 MS. GOODMAN: My name is Johnnie Sue Goodman. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Johnnie? Okay --


 MS. GOODMAN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Johnnie Sue, thank you. 


 MS. GOODMAN: And I am here on behalf of my 


late husband. In 1980, January of 1980 he took 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

335 

sick all of a sudden. Now he'd been feeling 


bad for several months, but we didn't know what 


was wrong with him and he wasn't one to run to 


a doctor every time he got -- got a little bit 


under the weather. Well, in January of 1980 he 


took a hurting right in here, right in his 


chest. He thought maybe he had the flu or 


something. 


He went to the doctor over at Oak Ridge at work 


that day. He said oh, take a couple of 


Bufferin and you'll be okay in a few days. 


Well, he continued to get worse for about three 


or four days. I took him to an old doctor that 


-- up at Concord, Dr. Malcolm -- whatever his 


name was, but anyway, that slipped my mind just 


then. But he said what's wrong with you? And 


he said I -- I can't tell you, let my wife tell 


you. So I went through the ordeal of it and he 


said well, let's step out in the hall a few 


minutes and I will send the nurse in to do some 


blood work on him. 


So he took me out in the hall and he said 


Honey, I hate to tell you, but your husband is 


almost dead. I said well, how -- how come? He 


said he doesn't have any blood. He said he's 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

336 

got leukemia in the worst way. And I said well 


-- well, how do you know? He said well, I've 


seen enough of it -- it's work-related. 


I had no idea what that meant. My husband had 


worked over there over 20 years. He had never 


told me anything that he ever done except he 


was an assistant general foreman in the machine 


shop. I had no idea what he did. 


So it -- I was in shock. Well, we got him in 


the hospital. In 60 days he lost 60 pounds. 


They gave him 150 pints of blood. It didn't do 


any good. They tried every kind of chemo on 


him they could. They -- I thought -- was 


trying to kill him. He was so pitiful, he 


couldn't eat. He was in misery. And on the --


July the 12th he passed away -- well, we buried 


him on the 12th. He -- he died on the 9th of 


July. He suffered death many, many times. 


I have never got any compensation, but men like 


that -- not only my husband, but others -- they 


need to be repaid some way or other, and I can 


-- I need it, and that's all I have to say. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And thank you, 


Johnnie, for sharing that with us. I know 


that's difficult. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

337 

Helen -- let's see, I'm having a little trouble 


reading the last name -- it looks like G-a-l-hs-o-n, Galhson? Probably don't have the last 


name correct. 


Oh, Helen G -- maybe it's an Alban or Allison ­

- any Helens? Any Helens? 


DR. ANDERSON: What's the address? 


 DR. ZIEMER: The address is -- okay, we're 


getting it closer. I'm sorry, Helen, I'm just 


having a little trouble reading this. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Well, I didn't come here to 


speak, but I'm just like her. My husband got 


sick and didn't know what was wrong with him 


and he only lived three months and they found 


out he had acute leukemia. And as you say, 


after 37 years, I think we all deserve a little 


bit, and we're not getting too far. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then I have Franklin Tucker. 


 MR. TUCKER: Gentlemen, my name's Franklin 


Tucker. I worked at Y-12 approximately 12 


years before they forced me to retire back in 


about 2001. I was a chemical operator. Now 


you're talking about doing a reconstruction 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

338 

claim -- or reconstruction and stuff on doses 


and stuff like that. You're going to run into 


some serious problems. Like other people I've 


heard here talk about records and stuff, what 


don't exist or what they have made up to fill 


in gaps. I see no way of ye'uns (sic) 


compensating for that. The whole 12 years I 


was there working in enriched uranium and also 


in special materials organization where the 


chemical exposure got me, there was never no 


study done. There was nothing done. 


Now I have been fighting this approximately 


three and a half years now. I went all the way 


to President Bush because I worked on weapons 


systems like the 88, the 87 and stuff like 


that. And when you work in that stuff and you 


start bleeding out the nose, and you're so sick 


that for the next couple of days that you can 


do nothing, something is seriously wrong. I 


went to the Department of Energy, voiced my 


complaint. All they said was hey, you're a 


whistle-blower. When I finally did come down 


sick and they told me I had to go out on long-


term disability, I was told by the people at 


Vanderbilt and stuff like that that I have 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

339 

what's called a chronic wasting of the brain. 


My brain's dying. 


These people -- I mean -- and since I've been 


sick -- and this is the sad part of it, the 


people I have run into that are so sick and 


have to fight the system to get anything. I 


have not been -- I mean I have been treated 


very bad, like I said, since I become sick and 


stuff like that. 


Ladies and gentlemen, the thing I recommend, 


one thing is please contact the President of 


the United States. You can get his phone 


number. Call him. Tell him, say you know, I 


worked on such-and-such weapons system, and 


that will get your atten-- his attention right 


there, and tell him what happened. And then 


request -- say where is a reconstruction on our 


dosage and limits and stuff of chemical 


operators and machinists and stuff, the two 


people that would have been exposed the most, 


'cause there's never been a study done. I have 


checked. 


That's all I have to say. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, thank you very much. 


Colleen Schotz? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

340

 MS. SCHOTZ: I'll pass. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let me jump back 


to the beginning of the list again. B. A. 


Austin, did he come in -- or she? 


 (No responses) 


How about Gail Elkin? I know in some cases the 


request for public comment sheet was 


inadvertently signed by people who thought they 


were simply registering, so some of those may 


have been in that category. 


I now -- I now need the second sheet and we'll 


-- I think the second sheet were -- were all 


folks who came here this evening, so -- yes, 


sir? 


UNIDENTIFIED: I'd like to find out if you can 


tell us who these people are at the table. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, we can -- we can go around 


the table. I indicated that these are the 


members of the Advisory Board. Dr. Henry 


Anderson, who's from Wisconsin -- maybe I 


should have each one tell who they are and 


where they work. Why don't -- Mike, why don't 


you go ahead and -- this -- this is the 


Advisory Board on --


(Whereupon, several members of the public began 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

341 

speaking at once, without benefit of 


microphone, rendering none of the comments 


distinguishable enough for transcription.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Sure, sure. 


 MR. GIBSON: Hello, my name is Michael Gibson. 


I worked at the Mound facility, 


(unintelligible) for Ohio for 23 years. I was 


an electrician by trade. I was also a union 


president for probably ten years. I was 


appointed to the Board in August of 2002. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. DEHART: I'm Roy DeHart. I'm currently at 


the Medical School of Vanderbilt. I grew up in 


Oak Ridge. I worked at X-10 and Y-12. 


MR. ESPINOSA: Richard Espinosa, currently 


employed at Los Alamos, New Mexico. I work as 


a sheet metal worker and chief steward for Los 


Alamos. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm Mark Griffon, a health 


physicist, and I'm currently involved in a lot 


of medical surveillance programs around the DOE 


complex. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Most of y'all know me. I'm Bob 


Presley from Oak Ridge. I worked at Y-12 37 


and a half years. I'm back out there. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

342

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, again -- I'll go ahead and 


reintroduce myself, some weren't in here. My 


name is Paul Ziemer. I'm a retired professor 


from Purdue University. My area is health 


physics, and I got my start in my career at X10 and a little bit at Y-12, as well. 


 DR. WADE: My name is Lewis Wade and I work for 


NIOSH, the Centers for Disease Control. I'm 


the Designated Federal Official on the Board 


representing the Secretary of HHS. 


 DR. MELIUS: I'm Jim Melius. I'm a physician. 


I work for the laborer's union. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm Wanda Munn. I'm a retired 


nuclear engineer from Hanford. 


DR. ROESSLER: Genevieve Roessler, I'm retired 


faculty from the University of Florida. My 


field is health physics. I'm now living in 


Minnesota. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Let's continue. 


Then we have Dorothy Thompson. 


MS. THOMPSON: Well, I'm another Y-12 widow, 


and I guess it's very clear to most of us in 


this room that Y-12 is as dangerous as -- was 


as dangerous, is as dangerous, I don't know 


what the situation is -- as any other place. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

343 

My husband died after a five-week illness of 


cancer in 19-- in 2001. The primary site was 


never really discovered, as apparently that -- 


it had gone everywhere. It was an unusual 


variant of a patocellular cancer. 


I applied and was just recently turned down by 


NIOSH. They gave me a 45 percent. I don't 


think it's accurate. I don't think it's fair. 


And I don't think it -- it's fancy algorithms 


that fancy mathematicians have done, but I 


don't think it tells the story. 


 My husband was employed in 1961 as a special 


project engineer. He was in the 18-day 


turnaround program at Y-12 where they would get 


orders from Los Alamos or someplace to build 


parts. He would stay out there on weekends. 


The plant manager, Jack Case, saw that he was a 


bright young engineer. He would stay out there 


on weekends with a health physicist outside the 


door and make parts, carry parts, examine 


parts, inspect parts, and was promised that all 


the rest -- everything else that he did not 


work with would be buried. And he would say 


Honey, you don't know what I've done today. 


You don't -- don't let the kids touch my shoes, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

344 

don't let -- you just don't want to know what 


I've done. But he said they put a lead apron 


on me most of the time, and Case thinks I'm 


really a nice young man and I've got places to 


go. And he lost his life for Y-12. 


Now interestingly enough, he was in this 18-day 


turnaround program from 1961 to 1967. Our 


first child, born in 1964, was normal. Our 


second child, born in 1968, had a devastating, 


etiology unknown, birth defect. Our third 


child, born in 1970, had a devastating birth 


defect. 


NIOSH says it's -- oh, we received counseling 


from the Mayo Clinic, from the University of 


Tennessee, from Vanderbilt, and they all said 


do not have any more children; we fear that 


your husband's sperm has been radiated. 


He was -- Bill was also in charge of the 


mercury cleanup at Y-12 for a long time. 


 Gentlemen, it's not fair. The -- oh, so I went 


to a lawyer, and the lawyer said you know, if 


you can prove he had any other kind of cancers, 


because of this 45 percent, you're probably 


okay. Well, Bill did have other cancers. But 


guess what? It took from 19-- 2001 to now, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

345 

2006, to get my rejection from NIOSH. And 


guess how long doctors keep their records? 


They've all been shredded. They've all been 


shredded. You can call the family clinic, 


they've all been shredded. 


Dr. -- the doctor on -- Dr. Sharp, who did all 


of his skin cancers, there are no more records. 


All I have -- I have a bill. I don't know what 


-- I don't know where to go. I don't know what 


to do. I was told by the lawyer also that if I 


could have proved he had worked at K-25 for as 


long as six weeks, there would be no problem, I 


would get the money. And it's really not about 


the money. I lost my husband at 63, and he was 


a good man. He worked with Bob. And -- and he 


-- the grandchildren are without a father, my 


brain-damaged daughter is without a father. 


It's not fair, guys. It's -- the NIOSH simply 


does not adequately reflect individual spikes, 


individual incidents, and I'm told that I can't 


question NIOSH, that the only way I would get 


the money is if I could prove he had more 


cancers, which is my word against your word, or 


if he'd worked at Y-12 -- I mean if he'd worked 


at K-25. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

346 

So I think somebody needs to relook at the 


process because there's no way that dose 


reconstruction adequately accounts for where he 


was from 1961 to 1967. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Dorothy. Next I have 


Thomas Duncan. 


 MR. DUNCAN: My name's Thomas Duncan. I met 


y'all a few months back. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. DUNCAN: And the only way I got to go to 


your meeting was -- big issue, they -- you have 


to have authorization to get off work -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible), uh-huh. 


 MR. DUNCAN: -- and I tried to get 


authorization this time, they denied it. And 


that's the reason I haven't attended any of the 


day meetings. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. DUNCAN: I got five different kind of 


cancers. I worked in 18-day turnaround for 12 


years. It's deadly. I got in contact with 


NIOSH -- my wife called me at work Friday and I 


called them Friday. I got the letter they sent 


me Saturday and read it, and of course getting 


authorization, they told me last time through 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

347 

labor relations and my division -- department 


head, I have to give them opportune time and to 


get that information for the last meeting took 


me about three weeks for them to give me that 


denial for the last one. And if you'd like 


more people to attend your meetings, you know, 


I consider it company business, you know, if 


it's -- you're talking about Y-12. Maybe get 


in contact with Y-12 and -- and let the people 


off, you know. If -- if I took anything 


besides vacation, they said it'd be 


disciplinary action up to termination, and 


that's from labor relations. 


And for NIOSH, I've contacted them two or three 


times and they said well, we'll give you a call 


back, never hear nothing from them. And I 


asked for some records where I attended the 


last meeting, you know, I signed in on the 


books, and they said yeah, we'll have them sent 


to you, and that's been three months ago, still 


waiting on them to send them to me. 


I got a letter today from NIOSH on my update 


and I've had some other body parts removed just 


a month or so ago, and I sent them in to my 


representation and I think -- I think I got 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

348 

five different kind of cancers, and that make 


the sixth one, and it's not showing up on my 


records through NIOSH, and I don't know how 


long it takes for them to -- you know, I been 


fighting cancer for oh, a little better than a 


year, and they say oh, you've got the best 


kind. You know, it's 80 percent curable. 


Well, I ain't reached 80 percent yet. That's 


about all I can say. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I wonder if some of the NIOSH 


staff can make sure we get the information from 


Mr. Duncan for the records and whatever was 


requested. There's some staffers here that can 


help you yet tonight, I think, and try to get 


that for you. 


Actually with the number of people who declined 


to -- to speak, we actually have finished the 


list here, so I'm going to ask -- there may be 


others who didn't sign but that do wish to 


speak, and I'll give you the opportunity. 


Yes, sir, please approach the mike and give us 


your name. 


 MR. ROYSTER: My name's Paul Royster. My dad ­

- some of y'all might know my dad. His name 


was Billy Royster -- George William Royster. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

349 

He died in 1968. Our claim was denied for -- 


said it had 48 percent. Some of the things he 


was involved in was he was there when the 


atomic bomb ground testing in 1957. He was 


involved in some experiments where he drank 


radiated milk from cows. Frank Munger* did a 


story about this a while back. He had 


plutonium spilled on him, that's documented. 


It spilled on his hands. That's documented. 


Some of his documentation was just handwritten, you know. He worked at UT Farm and he 


also worked at Y-12. He was a health 


physicist. We've been involved in the same -- 


same fight with these other people. 


He also had two years of documentation that 


couldn't be found from UT Farm. But anyway, he 


died in 1968 when I was nine years old. He got 


-- my mom got $25,000 life insurance to raise 


five kids, so I'm really here on behalf of my 


mom. She hadn't really been involved in this 


that much. My brother mainly has been involved 


with this, but the case number is 1407 and the 


dose reconstruction, 48 percent up to 50, I 


don't see how you can vary two percent. There 


should be a leniency there, to me. This lady 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

350 

said 45 percent. It seems like there should be 


like a five or ten percent one way or the 


other, the way I see it. 


But anyway, I haven't really been involved in 


this that much, like I said. My brother has, 


but like I said, the experiments with the 


radiated milk from the cows and there were five 


other people involved in that. I don't know 


how long that went on, but -- then when the 


atomic bomb was dropped and they just said put 


some glasses on and turn your head, you know. 


And he died of a brain tumor in 1968, but 


that's just -- I just wanted to share that with 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Yes, please, 


ma'am, if you wish to... 


 MS. ROBERTSON: My name is Florene Robertson, 


and I'm here on behalf of my husband, who 


passed away almost 11 years ago. He passed 


away with cancer of the colon and of the liver. 


Now he worked at X-10. Some of the people 


here may think X-10 is clean, but there are 


contaminated areas at X-10. And there was a 


night that he worked overtime. In fact, it was 


on a Saturday. He went in and worked on 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

351 

Saturday, and he called me and says I'll be a 


little late, I'm working over. Okay, he did 


not come home until the next morning, Sunday 


morning. And he had been there all night long 


doing a what they call wash-down. They had to 


wash him down, so that man was contaminated. 


All right. The fact that I want to tell you 


that that area's also contaminated is that they 


-- he was on loan at different times. He would 


come home and I'd say well, what'd you do 


today? He'd say oh, I worked at Y-12. So I 


don't have any way of proving that he worked at 


Y-12, but he did work at Y-12 and he also 


worked at X-10, but he was classified as a 


pipe-fitter. And in the area that he worked in 


I'm sure was pretty safe, but he did contact 


radiation while he was there. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, ma'am, uh-huh. 


 MS. BURGESS: Good evening, thank you all for 


being here. I'm here --


 DR. ZIEMER: Give us your name, too, for -- 


 MS. BURGESS: Oh, I'm sorry --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the record. 


 MS. BURGESS: -- my name is Gail Burgess -- 


Gail Mynant* Burgess. I'm here on behalf of my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

352 

father, who I lost 30 years ago to eye cancer. 


And I have no guarantee that the records that 


you guys are looking at are true, are factual. 


I can't get in to see them. They've all been 


shredded. They're missing. His medical 


records are missing, even at M. D. Anderson 


where he went twice. And just as a personal 


note, I worked in the field at X-10 for Bechtel 


National, and we took samples. I didn't get a 


dosimeter for two years. And then when I left 


and went back to the tower in Oak Ridge, they 


didn't do a full body count, so they don't even 


know how much radiation I got. 


Tell me now -- you've got me working out there 


12 years ago, and then my father working out 


there 30-some-odd years, I don't understand how 


you people are going to put it all together. 


And how can you let this woman and this man 


have -- be so close and not be paid? I don't 


understand this. There's got to be another way 


to do it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Gail, and yes, ma'am, 


go ahead. 


 MS. SLACKEY: My name is Sharon 


(unintelligible) Slackey. First of all, I want 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

353 

to say that every one of us wouldn't be here if 


we didn't have a story. All of them are alike. 


I want to know what are you going to do about 


them? Do you have any power at all to do 


anything? 


I had a father who is dead. He died of 


cancerous brain tumor. He worked at Y-12. 


They said they weren't responsible in the dose 


reconstruction. They had many years where he 


didn't even have a dosimeter, and yet he 


crawled in and out of the pressure vessels at 


9-212, and I do know what the pressure vessels 


at 9-212 were used for because I had a son that 


was there that was regularly exposed. Had he 


not died in a single-car accident, he would 


have died of cancer also. 


I have been retired from Y-12 now for about 


three years. I have also gone through cancer 


and I'll tell you right now they'll probably 


turn me down. They turned us down on our 


father, and our father had a cancerous brain 


tumor while he was working there. They did not 


diagnose it until six months before he died. 


They didn't know to look for it. But he got it 


at Y-12. We all know that. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

354 

My husband was a subcontractor out there at Y12 and did -- was doing a job in the east 


ponds. They let the -- turned the water loose 


on him and it was hotter than a depot stove. 


He was irradiated. He's a three-time cancer 


survivor. There's no medical records to back 


it up. That all happened a few years ago. 


If you guys can do something about these 


stories, it'll make these meetings worthwhile. 


If you can't, I don't see why you're having 


them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you. I might -- I 


might comment that with -- there is a sense in 


which what we're able to do is somewhat 


limited, but we are trying to do what we're 


able to do, within what the law allows us to 


do, to address some of these problems. We're 


hopeful that in cases such as yours where there 


are missing records that there may be alternate 


ways to establish the situation. We will not 


always be successful -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) disease, but you know why they 


couldn't pay for that? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

355

 UNIDENTIFIED: He died in 1981 and he had to 


have had the test that was given in 1993. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Thank you. 


UNIDENTIFIED: You're damned if you do and 


damned if you don't. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, ma'am -- yes, please. 


 MS. MILLER: Hello, my name is Kathy Miller, 


and I'm here -- I'm also a retired nuclear 


worker, but I'm here on behalf of my father's 


claim. And I have -- this is not unfamiliar to 


me, having worked in a government facility. 


I'm caught in a bureaucratic loophole and no 


one will take responsibility between NIOSH and 


the Department of Labor, and I thought maybe 


you all could find the answer to this question. 


My father went straight from the south Pacific 


at the end of World War II into work at Y-12, 


and he -- this is the week of his 25th 


anniversary of his death. He died -- he was 


diagnosed at age 54 with multiple myeloma, and 


he died be-- when -- he died before he was 60, 


he died when he was 59. So my mother was 


without his companionship and his help -- 


earning help and all those things for all those 


years, and she filed in November of 2001. And 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

356 

she lasted as long as she could, but she died 


about a year ago when she was in her eighties. 


So this is my question. My father's record, 


I'm told by NIOSH and by the Department of 


Labor, has been pulled as part of the special 


dose cohort or something along that line 


because he came to work at Y-12 in 1945. And 


the people who are -- who were -- I believe, is 


this correct -- worked for -- entered work from 


'43 to '48, those records have been pulled and 


set aside to be evaluated separately by the 


Department of Labor. Now we've been waiting 


since November of 2001 for my father's dose 


reconstruction and we don't have it, so now at 


the end of September, this law that he was 


covered by went into effect, September 25th, 


and at that moment or shortly thereafter NIOSH 


pulled these records -- I think there's several 


hundred of them -- and ceased work on the dose 


reconstruction and forwarded them to the 


Department of Labor. 


Okay. They have been there at the Department 


of Labor since that time or around the first of 


the year -- I know how things -- slowly things 


move. At the Department of Labor they tell me 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

357 

they're waiting for guidelines to administer 


this Act, and they -- I've tried to find out 


who they're waiting on so I could say, you 


know, could I get in touch with them, is it a 


Congressman, is it a Senator, is it a 


committee, is it a staff, what's the situation; 


they don't know. And I've called back to NIOSH 


and they say no, we're not doing it. So right 


now, since September, all these several hundred 


have just been sitting there, nothing's being 


done on them. And I've called about every two 


weeks since I found this out, and the 


Department of Labor has no new information. 


So I got really frustrated about two weeks ago, 


went to Senator Lamar Alexander's office and a 


staff person there has been very kind and been 


trying to help me, and she's been unable to 


find out. 


So my question is, I'm willing to push on 


somebody to do something if I know who it is 


and where to go. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's see if we can find someone 


who at least knows where she should be 


directed, either --


 MS. MILLER: I think there's 800 cases involved 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

358 

in this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, right -- right here in the 


back, from NIOSH --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- or Department of Labor -- we 


have both NIOSH and Labor here -- 


 MS. MILLER: Okay, thank --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and at least someone that is in 


the position to answer that question. Thank 


you. 


Okay, ma'am, please. 


 MS. HOLT: My name is Faye Holt. I lost my 


husband in 1954 with cancer. And I'm concerned 


who pays the salary for you guys to be here? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me address that --


 MS. HOLT: Would all of you --


 DR. ZIEMER: No -- yes. 


 MS. HOLT: -- like to know? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, you would like to know that. 


First of all, let me tell you that it does not 


come out of the pot of money that's used to pay 


claims. No, some people think that their claim 


money is being used to pay people such as us. 


It -- that's a separate pot of money and that ­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

359 

- that money is there, regardless of whether or 


not, for example, this Board meets. 


These Board members are on the federal -- 


they're considered special federal employees. 


We get paid the federal consulting rate, which 


I can tell you is about one-tenth of the 


commercial rate, and I don't know what -- I'll 


tell you what I made this year in serving on 


this Board. I made $5,500. 


 MS. HOLT: Well, you have -- all of you have 


jobs and you're just -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm retired. 


 MS. HOLT: -- volunteering to do this? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm retired. I'm retired, so I 


supplemented my -- my Social Security by that 


amount. And --


 MS. HOLT: None of you then are employed by 


NIOSH or DOL? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. No. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, Lew -- Lew Wade is a 


Designated Federal Official, which is a federal 


requirement for this -- 


 MS. HOLT: You're with NIOSH, correct? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 -- 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

360

 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 MS. HOLT: Well, I have a question for you. 


How can you do dose reconstruction on an 


employee if you do not know whereabouts, what 


building -- you know they worked at Y-12, K-25 


and X-10, but you don't know whereabouts and in 


what building they worked? Then how can you do 


dose reconstruction based on coworker 


comparison? There's no way you can do it if 


you don't know where the man worked. He could 


have worked up in a ceiling, he could have 


worked under the floor. Where are you going to 


go to get someone to compare with his case, 


with his --


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me take --


 MS. HOLT: -- (unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Mr. (sic) Wade off the hook 


because he is not actually a member of this 


Board, nor is that his area of expertise. But 


 MS. HOLT: Well, is (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in fact --


 MS. HOLT: -- can answer that? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in fact, the challenge -- the 


challenge that NIOSH has is to do what you 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 -- 

22 

23 

24 

25 

361 

described, and if they are not able to do that, 


then --


 MS. HOLT: They estimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, if they --


 MS. HOLT: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if they estim-- if they cannot 


estimate within reasonable scientific bounds, 


and one of the jobs of this committee is to ask 


that question, whether they are in fact doing 


that, and if they're not able to reconstruct 


doses or make a scientifically-defendable 


estimate, then they have to -- 


 MS. HOLT: They assume --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- place -- they have to place the 


individual in what is called the Special 


Exposure Cohort. And of course that really is 


the issue that is being -- 


 MS. HOLT: But how can they assume -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- being struggled with with Y-12 


is in fact can -- can what you describe be done 


 MS. HOLT: But how --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah. 


 MS. HOLT: -- can they assume that he can be 


compared to Joe Brown when they don't know 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 -- 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

362 

where he worked? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That is -- that indeed is the 


challenge. And if it can't be done -- 


 MS. HOLT: Well, they say they know he had 


various exposure to radiation, but they don't 


know where he worked. So now how do they know 


he had various exposure? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MS. HOLT: I mean, you know, there needs to be 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we -- we --


 MS. HOLT: -- some answers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually -- and the answer is 


actually fairly lengthy, but -- 


 MS. HOLT: Well, I've got all the time you 


want. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but what I was going to suggest 


-- what I was going to suggest is that we could 


-- we could take some time and ask, for 


example, one of the NIOSH people to give a 


quick overview of that process, if the group 


would like to do that. We --


 MS. HOLT: Well, all of the people that are 


here tonight, we didn't come up here for a 


picnic or a piece of coffeecake and -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

363

 DR. ZIEMER: Understood. 


 MS. HOLT: -- a cup of coffee. We came up here 


to get some things done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. HOLT: Well, evidently you all are not 


doing any more than what the letters say that 


we get, so why come to a meeting? Right? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm wondering if --


 MS. HOLT: Is everyone in agreement? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm wondering if Jim Neton -- 


 MS. HOLT: What we all need to do is join -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm going to -- I'm going to put 


Mr. (sic) Neton on the spot. Dr. Neton is the 


-- sort of the chief guy for NIOSH for dose 


reconstructions, and he will describe briefly ­

-


 MS. HOLT: He's doing a terrible job. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MS. HOLT: No one is doing anything. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, okay, but let me tell you -- 


let me tell you, in defense of NIOSH -- and 


again, I don't work for NIOSH -- that they have 


in process something like 20,000 individual 


claims. They have -- they have done dose 


reconstructions on a little more than half of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

364 

those already, and obviously not everybody is 


successful in their claim, as you might expect. 


Some are turned down and some are not. But in 


any event, they do --


 MS. HOLT: (Off microphone) Why don't they say 


(unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- they do have --


 MS. HOLT: -- (unintelligible), why don't they 


say (on microphone) we do not know whether this 


man was exposed? We know that this man was 


exposed. We know that this man died at the age 


of 24, after he was exposed. What else do you 


need? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Our Congressmen have put in place 


a law which mandates certain steps that we must 


follow legally. We cannot simply say someone 


worked at Oak Ridge and therefore they are 


entitled to this. That's not the way --


 MS. HOLT: I thought the President -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the law is written. 


 MS. HOLT: I thought President Reagan put that 


into effect. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MS. HOLT: (Off microphone) We don't need to be 


here (unintelligible) Washington. Right? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

365

 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. Yeah, understood. We --


 MS. HOLT: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) be 


there when the (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We -- sure. We -- this group is 


doing the best it can to carry out what we are 


legally required to do, as is NIOSH. 


 MS. HOLT: Okay, then why are --


 DR. ZIEMER: We understand --


 MS. HOLT: Why are you here tonight then? What 


are you here for? 


UNIDENTIFIED: To listen. 


UNIDENTIFIED: To listen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We are here to listen tonight, 


insofar as we are -- our responsibility -- you 


perhaps weren't here when we talked earlier, 


but the responsibility of this Board is to 


review what NIOSH is doing in dose 


reconstruction --


 MS. HOLT: We all know what they're doing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and inso--


 MS. HOLT: Why send you all here to tell us? 


 DR. ZIEMER: It -- we're here to advise the 


Secretary of Health and Human Services, but in 


the process, we do -- we do like to get 


information from people such as yourself, which 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 -- 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

366 

-- which points out -- and all of this -- all 


of this information is -- goes into the public 


record that points out the frustrations that 


many of you feel. That's an important 


component. We need to -- we need to make that 


information known, in some cases to Congressmen 


'cause they are listening, too, and they -- 


they know these frustrations. And if the law ­

-


 MS. HOLT: Evidently no one --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if the laws need to be changed 


 MS. HOLT: -- no one is listening. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we're -- we're hopeful that 


they -- that they will. And if the laws need 


to be changed, that process, you know, can go 


forward. But it -- it obviously is a 


frustrating one. You know, I -- I can tell you 


that even the Board -- we -- we share some of 


those frustrations, trying to do what we're 


legally required to do. But I recog-- I 


recognize what you're saying and, you know, we 


really will -- are trying to do what we can to 


-- to address those issues. They are very, 


very difficult -- very difficult, and -- and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

367 

we're not saying that it's easy, particularly 


in these cases where we really don't know. If 


we don't know and can't find coworkers or 


someone or groups that represent that person, 


and when they do they make what are called 


claimant-favorable -- you may not -- 


 MS. HOLT: All of these people fell through the 


cracks. There's nothing left. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we -- yeah, we hope that 


doesn't occur. We're trying to prevent that, 


really, yeah, but -- thank you. 


 MS. HOLT: (Off microphone) All of you need to 


this book I've got back here with all 


(unintelligible) and all of us get together and 


go to whoever and if we have a thousand or a 


hundred signatures, we can get a lot done. And 


(unintelligible) back here (unintelligible) 


name and phone number down, we will all get 


together. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, you're quite right, 


and it doesn't -- it never hurts to organize. 


 Are there others who wish to address -- yes, 


please. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I just want to make one 


statement. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

368

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I know a lady in this town 


that's already been -- got her settlement. She 


got it within three months, and this lady over 


here said that from -- it took from 2001 to 


2006 to get rejected. That doesn't make sense. 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, it doesn't. All right. The 


lady here, and then the gentleman. 


 MS. LONG: My name is Lindsay Long. I've got ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, could you give it 


again? 


 MS. LONG: Lindsay Long. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. LONG: And I've got a couple of questions 


for NIOSH. Is -- when the NIOSH interviewers 


call us and they do our interview, they want to 


hurry you up because you're taking too long to 


explain things to them, or you're asking them 


too many questions. They say we've got another 


interview here in another hour. I don't 


appreciate being hurried on and passed on to 


the next person. 


When you're tak-- having your appeals hearing, 


they're trying to push you on and hurry you up 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

369 

because they've got somebody else in an hour. 


I don't appreciate that, either. 


I'd like to know why there's no written record 


of the appeals hearing. The stenographer does 


her work, she doesn't type anything down, she 


puts it on a cassette and then she hands it to 


the hearing officer. She doesn't even get to 


see what she's recorded. It goes somewhere 


else. Why there's no official record, like 


there would be in most courts, if this is an 


official hearing? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to that. 


I think that you may be talking about a 


Department of Labor hearing. Is that correct, 


not a NIOSH -- yeah -- yes. 


 MS. LONG: I'd also like to know why, when 


we're -- it may not be your issue, but that we 


-- under the Freedom of Information Act, we 


request log books and we can't get copies of 


these records. We keep hitting brick walls, 


even though we know where they exist, we know 


where they are when we request them and we can 


say where they are, but we still can't get 


them. Why are we still hitting brick walls 


from the Department of Energy? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

370

 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to that, 


either. I do know that this Board has had 


difficulty getting things from the Department 


of Energy, also. 


 MS. LONG: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, sir -- come -- come to the 


mike, please, so we can record. 


UNIDENTIFIED: I just found out about this 


meeting a little while ago so I'm really not 


prepared. 


I worked at Y-12 --


 DR. ZIEMER: What's your name, sir? 

 MR. O'NEAL: Earl O'Neal. 

 DR. ZIEMER: O'Neal? 

 MR. O'NEAL: O'Neal, O-n-e-a-l. I left in '86 

and I went to work for nuclear power plant, so 


my first job was down at Barrett Power Plant in 


Georgia. And they asked me if I ever worked in 


nuclear and I told them yes, I worked at Y-12. 


And they said what's your dose rate? I said I 


have no idea, they never told me. And so he 


said -- this is the NRC guy -- now he says I'll 


find out. I said good -- good luck. I said 


nobody else can find nothing out up there. So 


I seen him a couple weeks later -- I already 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

371 

went to work and everything -- and I asked him, 


I said now, what -- what's my dose rate? He 


said I don't know. I said why not? He said 


they won't give it to us. And I said well, I 


thought you said you was NRC, that you could 


get anything. And he said well, we thought we 


could, but he said we -- we can't and he said 


we -- we're going to start you with a zero dose 


rate. And so I worked 25 nuclear power plants 


so I still -- I got dose now from that, plus 


what I got over there that they wouldn't even 


tell me about. But that's who you're working 


against. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. O'NEAL: Is people that knows how to 


shuffle things and hide things. So I just 


wanted to get in my piece -- and I been 


fighting them since '87. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. 


 MS. BOINET: My name's Diane Boinet. My 


brother, Maurice Anthony Fitzpatrick, died 


January the 25th, 2001. He worked at Y-12 


plant for 27 years. I think the last time -- 


last job he had out there he was a expediter 


and he died with cancer. Okay. He had never 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

372 

been married before, no kids or anything. My 


mother would have benefit from the program, but 


she died December the 18th, 2004, and I got a 


letter from NIOSH in January the 25th, 2005 


that he had a 50 percent greater that he had 


received his cancer from the plant, and that's 


what I'm saying. It took so long, my mother 


was eligible for it but she died, but the 


program been such a hold-up and, you know, 


people are dying off and my brother died a 


awful death but no one will receive any money 


because he had -- he's never been married and 


no kids at all. And you know, I just -- it's 


just sad that he had to die this way and nobody 


would be able to get the money. But his -- his 


cancer -- they did say it was 50 percent 


greater that he received his -- his cancer from 


working at Y-12 plant. I'm just saying, you 


know, and I know how some other people feel, 


too, about the delay and stuff, people dying 


off. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 MS. BOINET: Okay, thank you. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. 

MS. MOODY: I'm Shirley Moody, and I'm here for 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

373 

my husband, Earl Moody, who passed away April 


the 29th, 2001. He worked at Y-12 almost 20 


years. He died of colon cancer. I have been 


denied. He was in maintenance, which he worked 


in nearly every plant, every building at Y-12 ­

- around the ponds repairing fences, steam 


plants, rad houses. And I got a letter last 


week, they've reopened my claim, but they want 


me to have medical records from his doctors 


saying that his cancer was caused by radiation, 


which no doctor -- they have told me that they 


cannot prove that. So what do I do after the ­

- now? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Again, you probably need to 


get Ms. Moody with one of our claim people. 


think -- are they in the corridor still? To 


get some -- we'll get some information for you 


on next steps for you. 


MS. MOODY: Okay, thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, thank you. Who's back 


there? 


(Pause) 


 Stu Hinnefeld, can you direct Ms. Moody here? 


Ms. Moody, look behind you there. See Mr. 


Hinnefeld there? Get with him and get -- she 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

374 

needs some information. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay, sir? 


MR. BROWN: I'm Dennis Brown. I'm representing 


-- for my mother on behalf of my father. He 


died back in 1980, worked at K-25 30-some-odd 


years. I was there when my dad took his last 


breath in 1980, you know. He was -- many 


months at Four Centers* Hospital. Me and my 


brother in college, two younger siblings at 


home, spent a lot of days and nights at the 


hospital. We'd rotate nights. My mother would 


stay during the day while we'd go work out for 


college, but like a lot of these people -- 


folks here today, percentage shouldn't matter. 


One percent is too much, you know. These folks 


that have 45 percent, 40 percent, whatever, 


this -- this shouldn't be a case scenario 


whatsoever. I know you have guidelines and 


everything to go by, but again, he died of 


liver cancer -- covered with liver cancer. 


Thirty-some-odd years, you're talking about -- 


and my dad wasn't nobody big. He was a blue-


collar worker, but he loved what he did. A lot 


of people loved him, you know. He was there 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

375 

every day, very punctual, very reliable, and he 


was -- he was -- like I said, he was a janitor 


supervisor, you know, with five kids to raise. 


My point to you guys is, or my question is, I'm 


not too happy with your interactions -- you 


know, this is what I get from y'all for the 


last three years. I could probably cover Oak 


Ridge with the paperwork that I have. It seems 


like every -- every paper, they come up with a 


different scenario, something different every 


time. Like the lady said a while ago, the 


thing keeps dragging on and on and on. 


My mother -- she wasn't concerned with this. 


don't know what -- what year did this start, 


the re-- reconstruction dose, what year was 


that you guys --


 DR. ZIEMER: It really started in 2001 is when 


NIOSH got underway. I think the law -- the law 


went into place earlier, but it wasn't -- 


MR. BROWN: And her thoughts to us -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


MR. BROWN: -- we tried to get her to -- you 


know, to go ahead and buy into this thing. 


It's not going to bring him back, that's what 


she told us. 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

376

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


MR. BROWN: You know, it's not going to bring 


him -- so she wasn't too interested in -- into 


dollars or whatever. It wasn't till -- we was 


a late bloomer into this thing. It's been two 


years ongoing, two or three years ongoing. It 


was then a pastor talked her into coming up 


here to try to do something about it. 


But what I'm saying is, guys, it's a small 


price to pay. My dad was 51 years old when he 


died, 30-something years at the plant -- 30­

some-odd years plus. I remember when I was a 


freshman in college, I got his watch for 30 


years of business, you know, at the plant and 


everything. But 15 years of his life, the rest 


of it was spent in Oak Ridge. You know, 51 


years old is how old he was when he died in 


1980. So I think y'all need to be -- instead 


of the paperwork, I think you need more 


interaction, a lot of one-on-one with people 


that does have these claims. And you know, let 


them know that you care. This paperwork don't 


mean nothing to me. And I think I'm speaking 


for all these folks, you know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, understood. Uh-huh. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

377 

MR. BROWN: If you try to interact with us, 


we'll -- everything'll be a lot better. It's a 


small price to pay for 30-something years of 


service. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, sir. Thanks. Yes, ma'am, 


sure. 


 MS. MCKEETHAN: Hi, I'm Diane McKeethan*. I'm 


pretty sick, and I was pretty sick about 12 


years ago when I worked. And before the Act 


was ever signed I'm pretty sure I was -- I had 


a dose, okay. I don't know what it is, but I 


did inventory, so I know I -- I was hot. 


Anyway, I want to know what we, as a group, can 


do to help you guys, 'cause you're people, too. 


And I know you see the human suffering. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. MCKEETHAN: And I just wonder what we can 


do, as a group, because sometimes it takes the 


power of the people to get behind you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MS. MCKEETHAN: So please tell us --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MS. MCKEETHAN: -- please. 


 DR. ZIEMER: One -- one starting point of 


course is sharing what -- as you have tonight. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

378 

That is in fact helpful for the process. It 


may seem frustrating, but it does have an 


impact. It has an impact on the actions of 


this Board. It has an impact on the federal 


staff people who operate the programs. They're 


not all cold-hearted, really. And it does have 


an impact I think on your legislators, who 


really determined the ground rules on which we 


operate. So that's a starting point. 


Some groups do find it helpful to organize in 


certain ways, particularly if there's some 


political aspects that you need to -- to 


address. But I -- you know, I can't -- I don't 


want to get into that aspect myself, but you 


know, what you're doing already is helpful to 


us and we appreciate it. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) like a petition 


(unintelligible) petition (unintelligible) or 


(unintelligible) organization? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, of course there already is a 


Y-12 petition that's under review, so that -- 


that is in process right now. What you're -- 


what you're doing here -- this information gets 


shared and actually gets tracked to see -- for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

379 

example, issues that are being raised about 


paperwork and so on, the -- the agency and its 


contractor actually track this information and 


try to determine how to address it, so that's 


helpful, as well. 


And sir, I think you indicated you wished to 


address the group. 


MR. SCOTT: My name's Frank Scott. I'm the 


president of Local 900 in Oak Ridge. I'm 


working on my 30th year at the Y-12 plant. I 


was a chemical operator for 16 years in the 9­

212 area. I'm happy to report, as far as I 


know, I'm in great health right now, so I'm not 


here to talk about my health. 


But the dose reconstruction -- I have been 


involved in very -- probably more accidents in 


the Y-12 plant than most people have when I was 


in chemical operations, and some pretty serious 


things went on. And I can remember a fire that 


I was involved in where myself and some 


coworkers were involved in a chip fire where 


the whole room was full of contaminated smoke, 


and one of those coworkers today I understand 


has some very serious health problems. So you 


know, I expect somewhere down the road I may 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

380 

have some, too. 


But this dose reconstruction, to think that you 


guys can figure out how much I've had since 


I've been out there, no way. No way. 


Do I have confidence that the folks out there 


have -- have gave you accurate records, even 


the ones that you do get? No way. No way. 


I have what is considered now probably as a -- 


as -- if -- the people out there, when you get 


your dose record every year, most of them is 


going to read zero. Mine don't read zero. 


Mine reads around 300 or so, which -- which 


even to you all, that ain't a big number. But 


I also was involved in a program back in the 


mid-'80s -- I was a volunteer for RadCon, 


believe it or not, to -- their -- their effort 


was to prove that there was no insoluble 


uranium in the Y-12 plant so we could do less 


testing on people for contamination purposes -- 


urinalysis, as a matter of fact. And I regret 


that I was a part of that study because what it 


resulted in is -- is they went from a monthly 


urinalysis to -- to doing a urinalysis whenever 


you went to a rad area. And shortly after 


that, I was a representative of the chemical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

381 

operators at that time, and shortly after that 


I had a man come up with unexplained Y material 


in him, which is what we just proved we didn't 


have any in Y-12. 


So do I have any faith in what's going on out 


there? No. No. 


Do I feel like that we've had skewed records 


because of people trying to make sure that -- 


that the folks look good that's in charge of 


the plant? Yes. 


If I'm a contractor and I'm out there and I get 


numbers coming at -- going at DOE saying we've 


got this person radiated this much, this much, 


this much, and then I've got to turn around and 


the folks that work -- that work for me and 


their pay raises -- you know, I'm -- I'm 


responsible for pay raises, they're going to -- 


they're going to skew numbers, and they do, and 


they have, and they will. 


My -- my saying is you will -- you will not get 


an accurate reading. I also say if anybody's 


really interested in what's going on with our 


health out there, that we'll separate that and 


put that under the Department of Health, get it 


out from under the money that -- that's -- that 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

382 

it -- then it probably will help that issue. 


Thank you very much. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am, uh-


huh. 


MS. MANER: (Unintelligible) microphones, but 


I'm Valerie Maner and this is my father, Ralph 


Delozier. I am a medical technologist and I 


specialized in nuclear medicine. I deal with 


radiation badges every single month. I -- we 


haven't dealt with this reconstruction thing 


because we're not there yet. There's no way 


you can take -- like he was an engineer. He 


would go out in the plant. You can't take 


another engineer and make it the same. They 


don't do the same things. My heart goes out to 


these people 'cause you cannot reconstruct an 


individual's radiation. You can't do it. You 


cannot do that, and you know that. You're a 


physicist. Right? You know you can't do that. 


I know you can't do that. It's not fair. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Ma'am, did you -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: I just want to ask a question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Would you approach the mike again? 


Sorry to make you squeeze out of there, but we 


do need to get your name and be able to hear. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

383

 MS. FOSTER: I'm Ellen Foster. I'm here on 


behalf of my father. He was turned down after 


fighting for three years, and I got a letter in 


December and it said I may have -- I may 


request a reconsideration. It says such a 


request must be -- must be in writing and must 


be made within 30 days of issuance of this 


decision. It was clearly -- it must clearly 


state the grounds upon which reconsideration is 


being requested. The request for re-- for 


reconsideration should be sent to the 


Department of Labor. 


If there's anyone here tonight from the 


Department of Labor, I would like to talk to 


them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure, there are Department of 


Labor folks here. They may be in the corridor. 


DR. NETON: Out in the hall. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In the hallway? Jim, can you 


direct Ms. -- is it Foster -- to someone from 


Labor --


 MS. FOSTER: Also, and employee of NIOSH told 


me the last time I talked to her that from 1959 


until 1961 they did not wear badges at Y-12, 


and my father was there. So he died of cancer, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

384 

but I've been denied after three years. 
I 


worked there in the guard department. I was 


injured and I -- I got hurt and they -- and 


they say, you know, I had a body count. 
I 


never had a body count and I was all over the 


plant. I crawled around the attics, I crawled 


around everywhere, in -- in the buildings that 


they said was really hot, but I never had a 


body count. I never had any kind of -- of 


count. When I left there I didn't even have a 


physical, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: What years were you there? 


 MS. FOSTER: I was there from 1979 to 1990. 


 DR. ZIEMER: From 1979. 


 MS. FOSTER: And I didn't have a physical when 


I left there so they don't know what I left out 


of there with. So -- but I ha-- I do have 


thyroid problems. I'm now a diabetic, and my 


husband was there during the -- during the war. 


He -- he was a -- he was a chemist. He was 


supervisor out there, and now he's got 


Alheimer's (sic) and he's also lost his 


hearing. They say they don't pay for the 


hearing loss, but we spent four hours in 


Knoxville when we got this letter saying we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

385 

should have the examination. Well, they said I 


didn't have anything, but I do have diabetes 


and I have -- I have a thyroid problem, but I 


didn't have it until I left there. But what is 


going to become of this -- of this thing -- 


this examination where they took it over in 


Knoxville from ATLC? Can anyone give me an 


answer? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know, but if you -- if you 


raise that issue with -- Mr. (sic) Neton can 


perhaps direct you to where to find the answer 


-- yes. We'll -- we'll try to help find what 


you need. 


 MS. FOSTER: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yes, ma'am. 


MS. ALLEN: I'm Janice Allen and I'm acting on 


behalf of my mother, Nancy Thomas. We -- my 


mother was diagnosed with breast cancer and she 


had 14 cancerous tumors in her lymph nodes. 


They had to be removed in 2000 and we applied 


in 2001 and they turned us down in 2004. Well, 


since then she's done -- from the breast cancer 


and the cancerous lymph nodes, it's done 


spread. She has liver cancer, she has bone 


cancer, it's in her brain and everything. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

386 

Well, they turned us down and I called and 


asked them, you know -- you know, that's the 


reason why it's -- spreads, it's from the 


breast cancer and the lymph nodes cancer, and 


they said well, they doubt very seriously if I 


could reapply because that's a different case. 


So what are you supposed to do if they turn you 


down, they think -- I mean cancer is cancer. 


Once you got it and it spread throughout your 


body and -- but they're saying like well, you 


know, that's -- that didn't happen 'cause of 


that. And they said because of the breast 


cancer, because the lymph node cancer, it 


wasn't enough doses, so now that it's all 


through her body and she's on hospice and all 


that, they're saying like well, it's nothing -- 


no big deal, really, is what they're saying. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we know the answer 


to that here at the Board table, but on 


specific cases like that, again, you need to 


get with one of the caseworkers and have them 


follow up to see if there is an opportunity for 


that to be considered. 


MS. ALLEN: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Sir, another comment? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

387

 MR. DISHMAN: Could I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


 MR. DISHMAN: Could I ask the question of who ­

- is it Energy or Labor that is abusing these 


people on this reconstruction? Is it Energy 


Department or is it the Labor Department? I 


know --


 DR. ZIEMER: You'll put me on the spot. 


 MR. DISHMAN: -- you see, that's the problem. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't -- I don't know the -- 


 MR. DISHMAN: It's to --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- answer to that, I --


 MR. DISHMAN: -- keep the hat away from these 


people --


 DR. ZIEMER: No, no. 


 MR. DISHMAN: -- you know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We're -- we're trying -- 


 MR. DISHMAN: It's hide the hat. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We are trying to find the 


information that can be used for this -- 


 MR. DISHMAN: But surely you know if we're -- 


when they protest, and they protest too little, 


should they protest to the Labor Department or 


the Energy Department? We hope the Labor 


Department cares more about them than the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 -- 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

388 

Energy Department because they've been down 


that road and there's big ol' ruts running in 


that road. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah, I understand. I don't 


 MR. DISHMAN: But where does the buck stop? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't --


 MR. DISHMAN: The buck's got to stop somewhere. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I don't know the answer to 


that. We're -- we're trying to address what we 


can. We -- we've heard many concerns here 


tonight. We will -- you know, we're trying to 


address those. I don't know how effective we 


will be, but we will try. That's all I can do 


-- tell you tonight, you know. 


 MR. DISHMAN: But we -- but we don't know what 


Department we're --


 DR. ZIEMER: And I'm --


 MR. DISHMAN: -- having problems with. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm not sure. You know, if I 


said one or the other -- 


 MR. DISHMAN: Does some of our Board members 


know? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No. Well, you know, it's like 


who's to blame for -- I mean -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

389

 MR. DISHMAN: If you can't figure out who to 


blame --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you know, the -- 


 MR. DISHMAN: -- you can't get results. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The problem is a complex problem 


that has grown up over the years. I mean --


 MR. DISHMAN: Well, we agree. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- all of you folks -- all of you 


folks -- and us, most of us have had nuclear 


experience -- we -- we entered -- we entered 


these fields really, in a sense, on behalf of 


our country. All of you were, in a sense, 


volunteering, in many cases. You now see that 


you didn't know fully perhaps what the risks 


were that you were facing, and -- and I'm not 


even sure the agencies at that time knew those 


themselves, and that's probably part of the 


problem. They didn't monitor appropriately, by 


today's standards. And we're going back and 


trying to correct mistakes of the past, and 


it's very difficult to do, very difficult to -- 


 MR. DISHMAN: Please let the record show that 


no one knew what Department this falls under. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we know who has certain 


responsibilities. You asked who's to blame for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

390 

the problems --


 MR. DISHMAN: Well, who has responsibility for 


the dose reconstruction? 


 DR. ZIEMER: NIOSH is responsible for 


conducting dose reconstructions. 


 MR. DISHMAN: Is that under Labor? 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, that's under Health and Human 


Services. 


 MR. DISHMAN: Health and Human Services. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. DISHMAN: It's not under --


 DR. ZIEMER: Labor -- Labor's responsible for 


verifying certain things -- the medical 


records, the employment records and doing the 


determination of probability of causation. So 


those responsibilities are split. Department 


of Energy has the responsibility for providing 


records, and we're aware of your concern about 


the records. So it's split up. 


 MR. DISHMAN: And that's why we can't ever -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We understand. 


 MR. DISHMAN: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: A gentleman over here on my left. 


 MR. RUSSELL: My name is M. L. Russell. My 


previous badge number's 29562. I'm a sick 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

391 

worker. I was one of the original ten that 


signed up on this program. That was back in 


2000, signed up again in 2001, still haven't 


gotten any results yet. That's been five 


years. I had Drs. Lockey and Byrd sign that my 


exposures came from work. It was supposed to 


have put me on through. Still haven't heard 


anything from it. 


 Everything that we've given -- I've given 


repeat documents time and time again, and a lot 


of people wonder how they've been exposed to 


things. That right there is DOE's own 


documents. That's Rifle Range UF-6 explosion 


test, which people can see just the things that 


went on in your back yard that you didn't even 


know about, just showing that there was a 


little test that went on that people didn't 


know. And such things as the cooling towers 


that people drove through in the mornings that 


the fog was so thick that they couldn't see 


where they was going. If you go back and you 


check your calculations on what they checked 


just for the chromium on the towers, you'll 


find that they calculated that incorrectly. 


They calculated it for one tower, not out of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

392 

all of them. 


It's your own DOE documents that everybody has 


that they know it's there, but yet when people 


comes to them with them that I've presented it 


time and time again -- cross-water connections, 


I was on a committee for it. All of a sudden, 


the funding for it ended. It never got 


addressed. It was supposed to been handled by 


an independent agent. It got shut down. 


Time and time again we've showed that the 


problem exists, but it's another panel, a 


different panel, different people, more sick 


workers. Information just gets recorded and 


don't get handed down. I've had several 


surgeries. I hope I make it past all of them, 


but these people are just getting the runaround 


like everybody has. Look at the documentation 


that people's using you. Let's see some 


results. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, ma'am. 


 MS. THOMPSON: I'm sorry, I just have two more 


comments. Number one -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Give your name again -- 


MS. THOMPSON: Oh, Dorothy Thompson. I'm told 


that you cannot question NIOSH's dose 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

393 

reconstruction. Is that correct? If you go to 


an appeal --


 DR. ZIEMER: I think you can always question 


(unintelligible) --


MS. THOMPSON: No, if you go to an appeal, you 


cannot question NIOSH's dose reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, the -- yeah, the appeal -- the 


appeals are through the Labor Department, so 


Labor --


MS. THOMPSON: Is that right --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


MS. THOMPSON: -- Dr. Wade? Even though we 


know that their estimates -- that they're 


invalid, that they're inaccurate and that 


they're only estimates, we can't question them. 


That's pretty presumptuous. 


Then secondly, it's my understanding, Mr. -- is 


it Dishman? -- that we are to blame our own 


state senators for not joining the original 


bill -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that put 


Y-12 into the group that could claim these 


things without dose reconstruction. Is that 


right? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I'm not --


MS. THOMPSON: The Kentucky senators, the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

394

 DR. ZIEMER: -- I'm not suggesting -- 


MS. THOMPSON: -- Ohio senators --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- you blame your state senators 


for what they may or may not have done -- 


MS. THOMPSON: Well, it may have been an 


oversight at the time, but at any rate, Y-12 


was not put into the original document -- tell 


me what the -- that's true, that it was not put 


in as a special group like Paducah and 


Portsmouth. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MS. THOMPSON: Okay. So that's who we really 


should --


 DR. ZIEMER: And I -- I don't --


MS. THOMPSON: -- be after. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- think this Board really knows 


the workings of Congress in that case, what -- 


what factors went into the original 


determination of who was or wasn't in the -- 


MS. THOMPSON: It's my understanding --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- cohort. 


MS. THOMPSON: -- that the Tennessee senators 


were not in there fighting for Y-12. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I don't know the answer to that. 


MS. THOMPSON: Are any of the representatives 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

395 

here tonight? 


UNIDENTIFIED: Of course not. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, sir. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mr. Elliott from NIOSH -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Let me answer your earlier 


question, though. Once you receive a dose 


reconstruction from NIOSH, you are asked 


whether or not you have any additional 


information or not to provide. You're asked to 


fill out -- sign the OCAS-1 form, and then it 


goes over to Department of Labor. You can 


appeal on the dose reconstruction as to whether 


or not we applied the methods appropriately. 


You can question the application of 


methodology. You can't question the methods 


themselves. 


The Board is charged with evaluating our 


methodology and working on that, so just -- I 


wanted to answer your question about what you 


can appeal on. Okay? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. ELLIOTT: You can appeal on whether our 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

396 

methods were applied appropriately. You can't 


question methodologies. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Why? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry, that's just the way 


the law is written. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Sir. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's a law that specifies how 


they are to do dose reconstructions, basically, 


is what is being said. And -- and if they 


don't -- if they don't apply that law 


correctly, that can be --


 MR. ELLIOTT: We were required by law to 


provide recommendations in regulations on how 


we go about doing dose reconstructions. Those 


regulations were reviewed. You can comment on 


the regulations. But once you have a dose 


reconstruction, the Department of Labor 


regulations and our regulations in NIOSH only 


allow appeal on whether or not the dose 


reconstruction methodologies were applied 


appropriately, not on the methodologies 


themselves. I know it's confusing, but I 


wanted to answer your question 'cause I felt 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

397 

you didn't get an answer to it earlier. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) understand what you're talking 


about here. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Sir, go ahead. 


 MR. LEE: My name's Otis Lee. I passed on the 


first go-around. I may or may not have a dog 


in the fight here tonight. I've noticed some 


of the crowd has left, but I'd like to comment 


just a little bit. I retired from DOE with 


about 23 years. I was a courier, nuclear 


transport special agent, and I would like to 


say that this -- it just -- from listening to 


these horror stories, it appears that the NIOSH 


reconstruction is some sort of a dog going down 


a rabbit trail looking for a scapegoat and I 


don't quite see -- you cannot dispute 


scientific methodology and things of that. I 


mean what's -- two and two is four. But when 


you have -- you're trying to use a 


reconstruction as a litmus for folks who -- a 


litmus test for folks who haven't even worn 


dosimer (sic) badges, so it's -- it's an 


invalid method of trying to say you -- you do 


or do not qualify as to -- for this 50 percent 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

398 

situation because people weren't there. 


 So not meaning to make waves, but many folks 


are familiar with the Love Canal/Erin 


Brockovich situation, and I don't know if a 


class action lawsuit would be more appropriate 


to get power to the people or not, but I'm just 


saying that perhaps that may be some help. 


I know that situations I was involved in as a 


transportation security specialist, there were 


many times health physics folks would come out, 


they would find contamination and tell us all 


to leave, go up here, and then next thing you 


know, it's all clear, and we'd be setting off 


alarms and things of that nature. We had a 


staging area in the middle of a contaminated 


area that we would wait for shipments and 


things of that nature. So a lot of the -- the 


situations we were in were very -- just iffy, 


we just did not know what we were getting 


exposed to. So -- but I would encourage those 


folks to sign that little ledger that the lady 


has sent around and perhaps we'll all get in 


touch and maybe we can -- maybe we may be able 


to have more muscle than what you folks have. 


So thank you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

399

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Yes, ma'am. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) I didn't get your names and 


phone numbers. My name is Faye Holt. My phone 


number is 865-882-5618. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Go ahead, 


ma'am. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) leave your name and number 


(unintelligible). 


MS. KILEY: I'll make this very brief. I'm 


representing my father's case. His file number 


is 420055522. His name is Clifton O'Neal. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And your name is --


MS. KILEY: Is Debra. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Debra O'Neal? 


MS. KILEY: Debra Kiley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Debra Kiley. 


MS. KILEY: Yes. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Ma'am, can you 


stand (unintelligible) to the microphone -- 


MS. KILEY: Yes, I will. 


UNIDENTIFIED: -- (unintelligible) hear you? 


MS. KILEY: Yes. Back to our dose 


reconstruction, as usual. You know, I did some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

400 

research on this, as you can see. I work in 


the medical field, and my father had metastatic 


adenocarcinoma of the rectum. He didn't have 


just a few sites, but he had five primary sites 


of cancer. And you know, based on data from 


the American Cancer Society, cancer facts and 


figures 2005, the probability that cancer will 


result from radiation exposure increases as the 


dose increases. And NIOSH dosimetry 


calculations for my father, based on their 


findings, the District Office calculated the 


probability of causation for rectal cancer and 


determined that the probability that the cancer 


was caused by exposure to radiation during 


employment is 10.03 percent. And he worked out 


there nearly 30 years as a machinist. He began 


employment in '54 at age 35 and in 81 he was 


age 63 and ten months later he was diagnosed 


with final stage cancer. And ten percent, hmm. 


When I looked back at all the information that 


I was given, the determination is made based 


upon guidelines also developed by NIOSH, and 


incorporated into an interactive computer 


program that OWCP uses to calculate the 


probability that a claimant's cancer was caused 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

401 

by exposure to radiation. Whatever your 


methodology is for that, you know, we need it 


in laymen's terms and I agree with -- there was 


a young man who spoke earlier -- it's not a 


percentage. Any -- any amount of exposure is 


over-exposure, and it is not -- it's just not 


even feasible that this is going on. We know 


of a secretary at K-25 who got compensated, and 


my father was a machinist who -- he ground 


uranium, and please explain this to me and take 


this back to whomever it is necessary. Thank 


you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, sir. 


MR. DELOZIER: I'm Martin Delozier. This is my 


father over here. I didn't come prepared to 


talk tonight, but he worked at the plants, I 


also worked at the plants for ten years. Just 


to give you a quick history of what I did, I 


was -- when I first started at the plants I 


worked at the -- down at K-25. My job was --


when I first got there was take the Geiger 


counters -- they brought equipment out of the 


plant, to test what the radiation level was, 


whether it went to this yard or this yard or 


this yard. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

402 

But all that aside, what I'm -- want I want to 


say here and try to get an understanding of 


what we're supposed to do. We're looking for 


information to turn in to you guys to request 


or whatever, and ask for medical records which 


these people cannot get from the plants, very, 


very difficult. You've admitted yourself that 


you have trouble getting them. Just looking 


for some guidance what to do. 


Also, some of the other things that you're 


looking for, by everybody's admittance, you 


just have trouble getting this information. So 


to help these people find out what we need to 


do next, we're looking for some answers from 


you guys. And if you don't have the answers, 


these people are lost. And we're looking for 


answers from you all. That's what these 


meetings are for, answers from you guys to tell 


us what to do, what papers to fill out, how to 


get the papers if we can't get them and you 


can't get them. And to reconstruct the dose 


things, as everybody knows, is impossible. 
I 


mean I worked out there and never had a dose 


meter. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. NIOSH has people on deck 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

403 

here to help with individual cases such as 


yours, so you need to -- 


MR. DELOZIER: Well, it's not indi-- I'm just 


looking for information for the whole people. 


Tell us where to go next -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh --


MR. DELOZIER: -- 'cause you're requiring 


information that we cannot get. You're 


requiring information that can't be done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MR. DELOZIER: I mean like my father had cancer 


and the records were shredded seven years ago, 


just like other people here. I mean we've got 


a new instance of it now and we do now have 


current records. He's -- 7th of this next 


month he's going for surgery. So that'll help 


a little bit there, but we're looking for 


general information for everybody as what steps 


do people need to do since they're up against a 


brick wall. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


MR. DELOZIER: And they cannot get anything -- 


cannot do anything. We're spinning our wheels 


and going nowhere but backwards. And that's 


what the answers we're looking for. Thank you. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

404

 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Yes, right here, sir. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: My name is James Hackworth. 


I'd like to commend the panel in regard to the 


composition of the panel. I think it's 


admirable that you have people from the hourly 


workers as well as professors and a -- and a 


variety of people. That's -- that's required. 


That's good. 


But I would like to say this in -- in regard to 


being able to reconstruct a -- a dosage over a 


period of years, whether it be at K-25, Y-12, 


X-10, Fernald, wherever it may be. Here is 


some of the problems that there's been a lot of 


encountering -- my friends, other folks, many 


of them are dead, but here -- here is -- almost 


each and every one encounters. If you go back 


to 1943 when it first began, I had a brother 


that worked at Y-12 initially and in regard to 


the -- oh, golly, I can't think of the name -- 


the initial production in Y-12. But here's 


what a lot of folks are encounting (sic). 


There was no records kept prior to 1950 at Y12. I think a lot of these folks know that. 


So here's -- here is a huge question question 


that I've got. How can you possibly go back 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

405 

and reconstruct something unless you talk to a 


lot of these people that have been there? Many 


of these people are dead. You cannot go back 


and give those people a name to come back and 


talk with. Okay? So therefore, I would -- I 


would like for the gentleman to explain how 


they reconstruct with no records. 


 Another point I'd like to make perhaps some of 


the folks are not aware of, the dose rates have 


changed over the years. I started working in 


1951. The allowable dosage rate was much 


higher then than it is today. Now there's 


another thing that should be taken into 


consideration, and -- and I hope -- I hope it 


is. But if it hasn't been, it needs to be 


implemented. 


So, you know, here these people say no 


dosimeters, no -- everyone had a badge -- film 


badge of some sort, but I -- I would agree 


there's -- there's many, many people that did 


not wear dosimeters that should have been. 


Another problem area that we have in regard to 


being able to produce adequate records for 


their defense -- or not their defense, for 


their record or their loved ones' record -- is 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

406 

the fact that I do not feel that the 


contractors got -- they should not be allowed 


to get away with not some involvement in this. 


Okay? Because they had the responsibility to 


see that these industrial hygienes, health 


physics and the other programs to protect the 


workers were carried out. They did an 


inadequate job. There is no question about it. 


So therefore, the burden is coming back to the 


individuals to -- to prove something that's -- 


that's impossible to prove. 


Now I understand the gentleman and his 


calculations and methodology, the whole bit. 


But there's a big element missing -- no 


records, 1943 to 1950. So pray tell me, how 


can you go back and calculate something to nonexistent records? They do not know the 


buildings he worked in, the level of activities 


these individuals were working, and the dosage 


rate they were in. Huge problem, gentlemen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let me give you the quick 


answer. If there are no records, no monitoring 


records, no dosimetry records and no records of 


what sources were present, then dose cannot be 


reconstructed, and that would be the basis for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

407 

a Special Exposure Cohort, though. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: Yet these folks -- yet they 


died of the various type cancers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: Okay? 


 DR. ZIEMER: So there -- and there very well 


may be groups, depending on the years and the 


locations, where that is the case. And if that 


is the case --


 MR. HACKWORTH: That is very much the case. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, right. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: Many of those folks are 


deceased. 


I would like to just -- one -- (unintelligible) 


one final message. Okay? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: Mr. (sic) Wade, I understand 


that you -- you run back and reporting to Human 


Services. Is that -- that's your 


responsibility. Is that correct? 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: Okay. You heard the -- you 


heard the voices of the people tonight. You 


heard other meetings, perhaps. It's -- I'm 


going to kind of quote a little bit from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

408 

another person that made a statement one time. 


You heard the message. You heard the people 


and their statements. Their statements do fit, 


so you should go back and tell your folks to 


submit. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 


 MR. HACKWORTH: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The hour's growing late and I see 


many people are leaving. I feel like perhaps 


we should officially come to a close -- well, 


we have one --


UNIDENTIFIED: May I say something? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You certainly may. Please come to 


the mike. I don't want to call it off too 


soon, but I know many folks are leaving and 


that indicates --


 MR. BOWERS: I'm Leonard Bowers. I spent 44 


years at Y-12. Most of these people out here 


I've worked with. I'm now 76 years old. I 


came to Oak Ridge High School when I was 14 


years old. This creek here -- creek behind 


this building, I used to play in it when I was 


a child. Then when I went to work in Y-12 in ­

- in 1950, I saw what went in that creek, and I 


used to wade there and swim in this creek out 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

409 

here. And then finally they build a settlement 


pond out there. But this gentleman that just 


spoke a few minutes ago, he was trying to think 


of the Tennessee Eastman Corporation. Now 


they're the people that had the records back 


then. They're out of Kingsport. 


Now I'm an old-timer out here, and I still have 


my memory. But what these people have gone 


through with -- I worked in the mercury, I 


waded in it. I've left out there when my shoes 


were so hot that they would -- that they'd take 


them up and we'd wear little soft shoes to the 


change-out, and they disregarded safety 


altogether. 


When the tiger team came in from Washington, 


you know, they shut the plant down out there. 


And one of these gentlemen came in my lab -- by 


the way, I made printed circuit boards and I've 


dealt with gold, I've dealt with platinum, you 


name it, I worked in Y-12 from one end to the 


other. I went to work there in 1950 and that's 


when we was taking the silver out of the 


tracks. I was a crane operator. I served my 


apprenticeship out there, and I left and I went 


into the military and I spent four years in the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

410 

Air Force and came back. And while I was gone, 


my raises went on, my seniority went on. 


But we'll get back to some of the things that 


these people have lived with. Let me tell you, 


right now -- I just found out recently -- I 


went to the Welmouth School. I didn't come 


prepared to speak to night or anything. But I 


have just got a report back and the lady, she 


was out of Nashville that did these tests on 


me, and when she first looked at my fingers she 


said Mr. Bowers, she said you've got heavy 


metals in your body. Well, right out in the 


car right now I've got -- I've got the stuff 


out there, and the rating -- like arsenic, 


beryllium, mercury, sodium, potassium -- I 


worked with all that stuff. And I start 


tomorrow for tests to find out about these 


metals that's in my body. 


But I know what these people went through. I 


was there. I spent six and a half years on the 


Brigger* reactor, until President Carter shut 


us down. I spent 12 and a half years in 


biology. Now I've been around some very smart 


people in this world, and I went all over that 


plant from building to building, and I've got 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

411 

pictures of things that I worked with. We 


worked with asbestos and back in the very 


beginning we worked with carbon tet. That's 


what we cleaned electrical parts with. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sure. 


 MR. BOWERS: When the tiger team came in, do 


you know they shut my lab down, and the 


gentleman -- he left me his card; I don't know 


if I still have it or not at the house -- but 


they were giving me a hard time in that plant, 


and he set down and he talked to me, and I told 


him -- well, what they did, they condemned that 


lab. When you process printed circuit boards, 


you gold plate, and that gives off phosgene 


gas. The roof -- there was one man, he came in 


my lab and he said Leonard, he said I was up 


there at the bus stop going to the cafeteria 


and he said I looked up there on that roof, he 


said I could see it, there's a big hole in your 


roof. I said what? He said there's no 


exhaust. Now I won't go into details, it's 


late and a lot of you people have talked, but 


I've been from one end of that plant to the 


other. I've worked in every building out 


there. I've worked with some of the smartest 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

412 

scientists in the world. 


And it's been the educational -- I've put my 


hands down in centrifuge that were so hot that 


-- that they would leave with it. Well, I'll 


give you example. Back -- let's see, this 


would have been 1959, was working 9201-2, 


foreman. I asked him for 200 amp disconnect 


switch. Well, he was a retired colonel, and I 


asked him when he came up to me and I told him 


what I needed. I thought he'd order me a 


switch. Well, he comes wagging one back and I 


said -- well, his last name started with a K, 


I'll just call him Mr. K. -- I said Mr. K., 


where did you get this switch? Back on the 


mezzanine. And I said has health physics 


checked it? He says are they supposed to? I 


said yes, and so we call health physics in and 


a fella -- his initials were D.W., he's dead 


now -- and they put him on to wash that switch. 


Now this was a switch we was going to put on 


out in the hall. So what does he do? When the 


health physics man gets down there, he puts his 


Geiger counter on it and Mr. -- well, Mr. W., 


I'll call him -- he washed that thing for four 


hours, and when the health physics man came 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

413 

back he said send it to the burial grounds. 


 And another thing I can tell you that went on 


out there -- I'm an old-timer, and I'd like to 


share this with you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Remember now, folks are 


getting tired. 


 MR. BOWERS: No, this is -- this is the last. 


In 19-- this would have been 1955. Many of 


y'all know Charlie Robertson, don't you, that 


died. I was Charlie's apprentice. We worked 


together over a year, and we went in 9201-1 and 


we were on the second floor and here I am, I 


just got back from the service, and the guys 


were talking that they had connected the 


thorium line to the drinking water fountain. 


Yes. Now I don't know if it was actually 


turned on or not. We just said let's get out 


of here. 


So I didn't come prepared to talk tonight, but 


like I say, I go way back. And when -- I was a 


usher at the Grove Theater back in the '40s, 


and that's my picture in the paper y'all see 


which says "The Atomic Bomb, the Beginning or 


the End?" That's me when I was 16 years old, 


and I know what has gone on. And I lose my 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

414 

trend (sic) of thought sometimes, but it's been 


interesting. I love living in Oak Ridge. 
I 


graduated in 1947, and I've been around quite a 


bit. But these people here, I don't know what 


-- if I have problems or not, but you name it, 


I know more about Oak Ridge than any of y'all 


in this room because when you was an 


electrician in Y-12 you would go from one end 


to the other, that plant. You never knew where 


you were going on overtime. And these people 


are hurting. I've worked with them -- well, 


you spoke of Jack Case a little while ago. 


Well, Wayne Wallace was his first -- was his 


first wife, and Wayne -- I was working with 


him, and he developed this problem down in 


Alpha 5 in the mercury. And I felt sorry --


she did get a settlement, I believe. 


But like I say, I worked with many of them out 


there. I worked with Herman Postman, how many 


of y'all know Herman? Well, I started with 


Herman back when he first came here. He was 26 


years old and he worked in 9204-3, and I went 


down and hooked up his vacuum pumps and I made 


a prediction. I said there's a young man 


downstairs that's going to go up in this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

415 

company, and he went to the top. He became a 


vice president. 


But we had a lot of things we shared together. 


We worked on the DCX program. You name it, I 


worked on it. Every time they'd run out of 


money, I'd go somewhere else, and these people 


-- I worked with some of the finest people in 


this world. And these people right here, I've 


worked with them. I've changed the motors out 


for them, their lights and all. But I'm just 


proud to be an American. And what I like most 


about when I was out there, many of them 


dreaded going -- taking a lie detector test, 


known as the polygraph test. I thought it was 


a honor to go up there and take that polygraph 


test, that I was a red-blooded American and I 


was proud of this country, and that's when I 


went in the service and then I saw things 


change. And the man who was head of security 


out there and he was head of all the guard 


department, and I used to sit in his lap when I 


was a little boy. He lived with us at Tellico 


Plains, and I would -- he would tell these 


stories. But he was one of the finest men -- 


well, he is dead now, but I didn't mean to talk 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

416 

so long, but I just came in here and just heard 


these people, and I know how they're hurting. 


And I appreciate any help that y'all can give 


them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Sounds like a good note to end our 


evening on. Thank you very much for sharing 


that. Thank all of you for coming tonight and 


sharing with the Board. We appreciate it. 


We will be meeting again all day tomorrow. 


You're welcome to return and learn more about 


the dose reconstruction process. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 9:10 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

417 

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 


STATE OF GEORGIA 


COUNTY OF FULTON 


 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 


Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 


above and foregoing on the day of January 25, 


2006; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


7th day of March, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102